Another becoming a bail bondsman lap of the " Vanishing Shakespeare " variety is getting a lot of press. This time it is at Oxford. A couple of sample headlines: Shakespeare's status under threat at Oxford (the Telegraph) Shakespeare may get Oxford downgrade (Earthtimes from a UPI story) The Telegraph article (which seems to have mangled a quote from Stanley Wells) goes on to say: "The news has been criticised by the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC), who fear other universities might be encouraged to follow suit." I'm fairly certain any mention of Shakespeare, and particularly that Oxford is dubious about how it teaches Shakespeare, will only enhance Shakespeare's reputation, if that were possible. No need for one of the great theatre companies to tremble. The response of any serious student of Shakespeare ought to be: so what? It only means that a degree in English from Oxford will be worth less than it otherwise might be. In the Vanishing Shakespeare articles in the US, it should be noted that the very best of the best schools continue to require Shakespeare studies of English majors, and certainly the vast array of "lesser" schools remain unaffected by academic wild boars. The "Shakespeare industry" or "culture" or whatever you want to call it will remain unaffected because the works are inherently valuable to all of us who love them. "Essential literature" would not be too strong a term. Yes, it makes good man bites dog press, but legions of Shakespeare students and fans remain unaffected.

Another flap of the " Vanishing Shakespeare " variety is getting a lot of press. This time it is at Oxford. A couple of sample headlines: Shakespeare's status under threat at Oxford (the Telegraph) Shakespeare may get Oxford downgrade (Earthtimes from a UPI story) The Telegraph article (which seems to have mangled a quote from Stanley Wells) goes on to say: "The news has been criticised by the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC), who fear other universities might be encouraged to follow suit." I'm fairly certain any mention of Shakespeare, and particularly that Oxford is dubious about how it teaches Shakespeare, will only enhance Shakespeare's reputation, if that were possible. No need for one of the great theatre companies to tremble. The response of any serious student of Shakespeare ought to be: so what? It only ucsc genome browser eans that a degree in English from Oxford will be worth less than it otherwise might be. In the Vanishing Shakespeare articles in the US, it should be noted that the very best of the best schools continue to require Shakespeare studies of English majors, and certainly the vast array of "lesser" schools remain unaffected by academic wild boars. The "Shakespeare industry" or "culture" or whatever you want to call it will remain unaffected because the works are inherently valuable to all of us who love them. "Essential literature" would not be too strong a term. Yes, it makes good man bites dog press, but legions of Shakespeare students and fans remain unaffected.

Paul Kedrosky asks a valid question about Forrester's turnaround on Google. Not just turnaround - the executive summary for the new Forrester document is a simple, powerful "Google voip business phone system ill define the future of software". Critical as I am of Microsoft, SAP, Oracle through out my blog I would not go that far. But then I was not trained by George Colony. At Gartner, we would marvel at Forrester's calls. Bold and brash. Forrester was entrepreneurial - Gartner was corporate. But they were also dead wrong quite often. In 1995, Bobby Cameron basically declared SAP dead . Their stock dropped 10% the day he issued that report. He also issued a report in 2000 titled "The Death of IT" way before Nicholas Carr wrote "Does IT matter?" Forrester talked up "eBusiness" in 1999, tried to talk everybody into accepting the "X Internet" in 2001, scared everyone about offshoring in 2002. George's Google call (s) are part of that pattern. That segment of the industry needs its risk takers too. One area George does not like to take a risk - he likes all his analysts in Cambridge. One reason I did not get trained by him. My loss.

by emptywheel Sidney Blumenthal and I were apparently making the same point at about the same time. Not long after I argued, on a panel on the Imperial Presidency , that there are those within the Administration who believe in the rule of law and can therefore be mobilized against it, Sidney was finishing up his column making that point in much more comprehensive fashion. In private, Bush administration sub-Cabinet officials who have been instrumental in formulating and sustaining the legal "war paradigm" acknowledge that their efforts to create a system for detainees separate from due process, criminal justice and law enforcement have failed. One of the key framers of the war paradigm (in which the president in his wartime capacity as commander in chief makes and enforces laws as he sees fit, overriding the constitutional system of checks and balances), who a year ago was arguing vehemently for pushing its boundaries, confesses that he has abandoned his belief in the whole doctrine, though he refuses to say so publicly. If he were to speak up, given his seminal role in formulating the policy and his stature among the Federalist Society cadres that run it, his rejection would have a shattering impact, far more than political philosopher Francis Fukuyama's denunciation of the neoconservatism he formerly embraced. But this macintosh consulting igure remains careful to disclose his disillusionment with his own handiwork only in off-the-record conversations.

[ X-posted to The Valve .] Just yesterday I told someone that I'd never write about baseball because then I'd never write about anything else . . . and yet here I am today writing about baseball. The occasion? Don Delillo wants to despoil one of the highlights of my childhood: Game 6 . As many of you know, I loathe Don Delillo . I loathe him as much as I love Game Six . The real one, not the recently released film Delillo penned. (I could write about Mookie Wilson's slow dribbler and the error which from that day forward defined Bill Buckner's life; instead I'll note in passing that no one deserves to spend the rest of his life autographing photographs of the mistake deal laptop hich defines it . Not even a member of the '86 Red Sox.) Since people already know that my central complaint about Delillo (and others) is singular, signature narrative voice , I won't re-rehearse that argument here. I will wonder why, given Delillo's heteroglossical limitations, someone decided to let him play screenwriter. (For more on a related topic, see Laura's excellent post below.) I can think of few roles for which a writer with Delillo's weaknesses is less suited: sitcom writer, for one; a foil for Larry David , for another. The list is remarkably short. Or is it?

Paul Kedrosky asks a valid question about Forrester's turnaround on Google. Not just turnaround - the executive summary for the new Forrester document is a simple, powerful "Google will define the future of software". Critical as I am of Microsoft, SAP, Oracle through out my blog I would not go that far. But then I was not trained by George Colony. At Gartner, we would marvel at Forrester's calls. Bold and brash. Forrester was entrepreneurial - Gartner was corporate. deep dish dj ut they were also dead wrong quite often. In 1995, Bobby Cameron basically declared SAP dead . Their stock dropped 10% the day he issued that report. He also issued a report in 2000 titled "The Death of IT" way before Nicholas Carr wrote "Does IT matter?" Forrester talked up "eBusiness" in 1999, tried to talk everybody into accepting the "X Internet" in 2001, scared everyone about offshoring in 2002. George's Google call (s) are part of that pattern. That segment of the industry needs its risk takers too. One area George does not like to take a risk - he likes all his analysts in Cambridge. One reason I did not get trained by him. My loss.

by CKR According to the 2 December Science magazine (subscription only; article reproduced here ), the Department of Energy’s fiscal year 2006 budget contains $50 million toward a goal of beginning construction on an engineering-scale plant for reprocessing of nuclear fuel by 2010. A summary from the Office of Management and Budget presents a timeline and a suggestive sentence: The Budget also continues research on advanced, proliferation-resistant nuclear fuel cycles, which would allow the Nation to extract the energy potential from spent nuclear fuel and dramatically reduce the quantity and toxicity of the remaining waste. The word reprocessing is not used, but that’s what “extracting the energy potential from spent nuclear fuel” has to mean. This represents a significant change in United States policy. The current policy has been in denon dm30 orce since 1977 . On April 7 of that year, Jimmy Carter announced that the United States would no longer reprocess spent nuclear fuel. The rationale was that if plutonium and uranium were not separated via reprocessing, proliferation would be more difficult. Carter expected that other countries would follow. The world has not followed the United States. Russia, France, Britain, and Japan all reprocess nuclear fuel.

Paul Kedrosky asks a valid question about Forrester's turnaround on Google. Not just turnaround - the executive summary for the new Forrester document is a simple, powerful "Google will define the future of software". Critical as I am of Microsoft, SAP, Oracle through out my blog I would not go that far. But then I was not trained by George Colony. At Gartner, we would marvel at Forrester's calls. Bold and brash. Forrester was entrepreneurial - Gartner was corporate. But they were also dead wrong quite e mail marketing software ften. In 1995, Bobby Cameron basically declared SAP dead . Their stock dropped 10% the day he issued that report. He also issued a report in 2000 titled "The Death of IT" way before Nicholas Carr wrote "Does IT matter?" Forrester talked up "eBusiness" in 1999, tried to talk everybody into accepting the "X Internet" in 2001, scared everyone about offshoring in 2002. George's Google call (s) are part of that pattern. That segment of the industry needs its risk takers too. One area George does not like to take a risk - he likes all his analysts in Cambridge. One reason I did not get trained by him. My loss.

Paul Kedrosky asks a valid question about Forrester's turnaround on Google. Not just turnaround - the executive summary for the new Forrester document is a simple, powerful "Google will define the future of software". Critical as I am of Microsoft, SAP, Oracle through out my blog I would not go that far. But then I was not trained by George Colony. At Gartner, we would marvel at Forrester's calls. Bold and brash. Forrester was entrepreneurial - Gartner was corporate. But they were also dead wrong quite often. In 1995, Bobby Cameron basically declared SAP dead . Their stock dropped 10% the day he issued that report. He also issued a report in 2000 titled "The Death of IT" way before Nicholas Carr wrote "Does IT matter?" Forrester talked up "eBusiness" in 1999, tried to talk everybody into accepting the "X Internet" in 2001, scared everyone about offshoring in 2002. George's Google call (s) are part of that pattern. That segment of the industry needs its risk takers too. One the long emergency rea George does not like to take a risk - he likes all his analysts in Cambridge. One reason I did not get trained by him. My loss.

[ X-posted to The Valve .] Just yesterday I told someone that I'd never write about baseball because then I'd never write about anything else . . . and yet here I am today writing about baseball. The occasion? Don Delillo wants to despoil one of the highlights of my childhood: Game 6 . As many of you know, I loathe Don Delillo . I loathe him as much as I love Game Six . The real one, not the recently released film Delillo penned. (I could write about Mookie Wilson's slow dribbler and the error which from that day forward defined Bill Buckner's life; instead I'll note in passing that no one deserves to spend the rest of his life autographing photographs of the mistake which defines it . Not even a member of the '86 Red Sox.) Since people already know that my central complaint about Delillo (and others) is singular, signature narrative voice , I won't re-rehearse that argument here. I will wonder why, given Delillo's heteroglossical limitations, someone decided to let him play screenwriter. (For more on a related topic, see Laura's excellent post below.) I can think of few roles for which a writer with Delillo's weaknesses is less suited: sitcom writer, for one; a foil for Larry David , for another. leads he list is remarkably short. Or is it?

Another flap of the " Vanishing Shakespeare " variety is getting a lot of press. This time it is at Oxford. A couple of sample headlines: Shakespeare's status under threat at Oxford (the Telegraph) Shakespeare may get Oxford downgrade (Earthtimes from a UPI story) The Telegraph article (which seems to have mangled a quote from Stanley Wells) goes on to say: "The news has been criticised by the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC), who fear other universities might be encouraged to follow suit." I'm fairly certain any mention of Shakespeare, and particularly that Oxford is dubious about how it teaches Shakespeare, will only enhance Shakespeare's reputation, if that were possible. No need for one of the great theatre companies to tremble. The response of any serious student of Shakespeare ought to be: so what? It only means that a degree in English from Oxford will be worth less than it otherwise might be. In the Vanishing Shakespeare articles in the US, it should be noted that the very best of the best schools continue to require Shakespeare studies of mesothelioma clinics nglish majors, and certainly the vast array of "lesser" schools remain unaffected by academic wild boars. The "Shakespeare industry" or "culture" or whatever you want to call it will remain unaffected because the works are inherently valuable to all of us who love them. "Essential literature" would not be too strong a term. Yes, it makes good man bites dog press, but legions of Shakespeare students and fans remain unaffected.

Another flap of the " Vanishing Shakespeare " variety is getting a lot of press. This time it is at Oxford. A couple of sample headlines: Shakespeare's status under threat at Oxford (the Telegraph) Shakespeare may get Oxford downgrade (Earthtimes from a UPI story) The Telegraph article (which seems to have mangled a quote from Stanley Wells) goes on to say: "The news has been criticised by the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC), who fear other universities might be encouraged to follow suit." I'm fairly certain any mention of Shakespeare, and particularly that Oxford is dubious about how it teaches Shakespeare, will only enhance Shakespeare's reputation, if that were possible. No need for one of the great theatre companies to tremble. The response of any serious student of Shakespeare ought to be: so what? It only means that a degree in English from Oxford will be worth less than it otherwise might be. In the Vanishing Shakespeare articles in the US, it should be noted that cheap mobile phones nokia he very best of the best schools continue to require Shakespeare studies of English majors, and certainly the vast array of "lesser" schools remain unaffected by academic wild boars. The "Shakespeare industry" or "culture" or whatever you want to call it will remain unaffected because the works are inherently valuable to all of us who love them. "Essential literature" would not be too strong a term. Yes, it makes good man bites dog press, but legions of Shakespeare students and fans remain unaffected.

Another flap of the " Vanishing Shakespeare " variety is getting a lot of press. This time it is at Oxford. A couple of sample headlines: Shakespeare's status under threat at Oxford (the Telegraph) Shakespeare may get Oxford downgrade (Earthtimes from a UPI story) The Telegraph article (which seems to have mangled a quote from Stanley Wells) goes on to say: "The news has been criticised by the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC), who fear other universities might be encouraged to follow suit." I'm fairly certain any mention of Shakespeare, and particularly that Oxford is dubious about how it teaches Shakespeare, will only enhance Shakespeare's reputation, if that were possible. No need for one of the great theatre companies to tremble. The response of any serious student of Shakespeare ought to be: so what? It only means that a degree in English from Oxford will be worth less than it otherwise might be. In the Vanishing Shakespeare articles in the US, it should be noted that the very best of the best schools continue to require Shakespeare studies of English majors, and certainly the vast array of "lesser" schools remain unaffected by academic wild boars. The "Shakespeare industry" or "culture" or whatever you want to call it will remain unaffected because the works are inherently valuable to all of us who love them. "Essential literature" would not be too strong a term. Yes, it listen to radio online akes good man bites dog press, but legions of Shakespeare students and fans remain unaffected.

Another flap of the " Vanishing Shakespeare " variety is getting a lot of press. This time it is at Oxford. A couple of sample headlines: Shakespeare's status under threat at Oxford (the Telegraph) Shakespeare may get Oxford downgrade (Earthtimes from a UPI story) The Telegraph article (which seems to have mangled a quote from Stanley Wells) goes on to say: "The news has been criticised by the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC), who fear other universities might be encouraged to follow suit." I'm fairly certain any mention of Shakespeare, and particularly that Oxford is dubious about how it teaches Shakespeare, will only enhance Shakespeare's business register florida eputation, if that were possible. No need for one of the great theatre companies to tremble. The response of any serious student of Shakespeare ought to be: so what? It only means that a degree in English from Oxford will be worth less than it otherwise might be. In the Vanishing Shakespeare articles in the US, it should be noted that the very best of the best schools continue to require Shakespeare studies of English majors, and certainly the vast array of "lesser" schools remain unaffected by academic wild boars. The "Shakespeare industry" or "culture" or whatever you want to call it will remain unaffected because the works are inherently valuable to all of us who love them. "Essential literature" would not be too strong a term. Yes, it makes good man bites dog press, but legions of Shakespeare students and fans remain unaffected.

by emptywheel Sidney Blumenthal and I were apparently making the same point at about the same time. Not long after I argued, on a panel on the Imperial Presidency , that there are those within the Administration who believe in the rule of law and can therefore be mobilized against it, Sidney was finishing up his column making that point in much more comprehensive fashion. In private, Bush administration sub-Cabinet officials who have been instrumental in formulating and sustaining the legal "war paradigm" acknowledge that their efforts to create a system for detainees separate from due process, criminal justice and law enforcement have failed. One of the key framers of the war paradigm (in which the president in his wartime capacity as commander in chief makes and enforces laws as he sees fit, overriding the constitutional system of checks and balances), who a year ago was arguing vehemently for pushing its boundaries, confesses that he has abandoned his belief in the whole doctrine, though he refuses to say so publicly. If he were to speak up, given his seminal role in formulating the policy and his stature among the Federalist Society cadres that run it, his rejection would have a shattering impact, far more than political philosopher Francis da vinci robot ukuyama's denunciation of the neoconservatism he formerly embraced. But this figure remains careful to disclose his disillusionment with his own handiwork only in off-the-record conversations.

Paul Kedrosky asks a valid question about Forrester's turnaround on Google. Not just turnaround - the executive summary for the new Forrester document is a simple, powerful "Google will define the future of software". Critical as I am of Microsoft, SAP, Oracle through out my blog I would not go that far. But then I was not trained by George Colony. At Gartner, we would marvel at Forrester's calls. Bold and brash. Forrester was entrepreneurial - Gartner was corporate. But they were also dead wrong quite often. In 1995, Bobby Cameron basically declared SAP dead . Their stock dropped 10% the day he issued that report. He also issued a report in 2000 titled "The Death of IT" way before Nicholas Carr wrote "Does IT matter?" Forrester talked up "eBusiness" in 1999, tried to talk everybody into accepting the "X Internet" in 2001, scared everyone about offshoring in 2002. George's Google call (s) are part of that pattern. That segment of the industry needs its risk takers too. One area George does not like to take a risk - he likes all his analysts in Cambridge. One go pc eason I did not get trained by him. My loss.

by CKR According to the 2 December Science magazine (subscription only; article reproduced here ), the Department of Energy’s fiscal year 2006 budget contains $50 million remove trojan.dropper oward a goal of beginning construction on an engineering-scale plant for reprocessing of nuclear fuel by 2010. A summary from the Office of Management and Budget presents a timeline and a suggestive sentence: The Budget also continues research on advanced, proliferation-resistant nuclear fuel cycles, which would allow the Nation to extract the energy potential from spent nuclear fuel and dramatically reduce the quantity and toxicity of the remaining waste. The word reprocessing is not used, but that’s what “extracting the energy potential from spent nuclear fuel” has to mean. This represents a significant change in United States policy. The current policy has been in force since 1977 . On April 7 of that year, Jimmy Carter announced that the United States would no longer reprocess spent nuclear fuel. The rationale was that if plutonium and uranium were not separated via reprocessing, proliferation would be more difficult. Carter expected that other countries would follow. The world has not followed the United States. Russia, France, Britain, and Japan all reprocess nuclear fuel.

by CKR According to the 2 December Science magazine (subscription only; article reproduced here ), the Department of Energy’s fiscal year 2006 budget contains $50 million toward a goal of beginning construction on an engineering-scale plant for reprocessing of nuclear fuel by 2010. A summary from the Office of Management and Budget presents a timeline and a suggestive sentence: The Budget also continues research on advanced, proliferation-resistant nuclear fuel cycles, which would allow the Nation to extract the energy potential from spent nuclear fuel and dramatically reduce the quantity and toxicity of the remaining waste. The word reprocessing is not used, but that’s what “extracting the energy potential from spent nuclear fuel” has to mean. This represents a significant change in United States policy. The current policy has been in force since 1977 . On April 7 of that year, Jimmy Carter announced that the United States would no longer reprocess spent nuclear fuel. The rationale was that if plutonium and uranium were not separated via reprocessing, proliferation would be more florida house in orlando rental vacation ifficult. Carter expected that other countries would follow. The world has not followed the United States. Russia, France, Britain, and Japan all reprocess nuclear fuel.