The Big Mouth
I've decided to rename and relaunch this blog as The Big Mouth. For future posts, go here.
- posted by bigmouth @ 11:13 AM

 
Mistake
This is going to backfire on Zarqawi and his followers, if they go through with it. Big time. I'm sure many in the arab world will dismiss Cpl. Hassoun as a traitor in service of the crusaders. But I also predict there are many more moderates on the margin who will be disgusted to see an arab beheaded on tv.
- posted by bigmouth @ 7:50 AM

 
Writer's Block?
It occurs to me that someone reading this blog might come to the mistaken conclusion that I have no sense of humor. (In fact, I'm rather funny.) The realization has frankly left me paralyzed. I didn't see this one mentioned in the New Yorker piece on writer's block...

- posted by bigmouth @ 9:17 AM

 
Why We Like-a da Juice So Much
Dahlia Lithwick, the compelling legal commentator over on slate, wonders why the O.J. trial continues to stand out in our collective consciousness as the "trial of the century." After all, as Lithwick points out, there have been plenty of other highly publicized celebrity trials--both before and since. There have also been many televised trials, and a few--like those of Adolf Eichmann and William Kennedy Smith--predated even O.J.'s.

I think a part of the answer is contained in Litwick's question. O.J. may not have been the first big celebrity trial, or the first televised trial, but it was the first big celebrity trial to be televised. Few knew who Eichmann was, and even fewer Kennedy Smith, before their respective trials. O.J. was the first genuinely public figure to have his brush with justice broadcast into our homes. All this at a time when cable television generally, and cable news channels particularly, were expanding rapidly. The combination was combustible, which is why, for better or worse, O.J.'s remains the trial of the 20th century.
- posted by bigmouth @ 10:45 AM

 
Making Goodness Profitable
Michael Lewis, the articulate and visionary author of Moneyball (among other great books) has a provocative piece in the NYTimes magazine this week. It's entitled the "Irresponsible Investor," but its really more about how the extreme pressure on public corporations to show short term profits has tainted the teaching of corporate ethics in unfortunate ways.

In the wake of shameful investor scandals from the past decade or so, b-schools have understandably (and laudably) upgraded their corporate responsibility offerings. But the profit motive is apparently so pervasive that teaching on the subject focuses relentlessly on making goodness profitable. The result, Lewis argues, is a loss of authenticity, though he finds that term difficult to define.

I think some of what Lewis is getting at is that the profit motive has distorted the norms of corporate goodness. When you do something that is charitable but also in your financial interest, it's unclear to whether you're motivated by goodness or profit. It's similar to why the law doesn't generally enforce promises to give gifts. To do otherwise would distort the norms of gift giving by making it unclear whether the giver followed through out of genuine generosity or merely fear of legal sanction.
- posted by bigmouth @ 3:20 PM