At last, my own personal linguistic pet peeve - the use of the phrase "I could care less," when what the speaker actually means is exactly the opposite, "I couldn't care less" - is getting some long-overdue attention in the blogosphere. Kevin Drum, whom I ordinarily hold in high esteem, appears to believe that when it is employed, the speaker is doing so sarcastically, as when a teenager says, "Yeah Mom, going antiquing with you sounds like lots of fun." Unless Kevin is himself being sarcastic when he says this, he just couldn't be more wrong.
Josh Greentells us that coverage of the oil spill has driven the Tea Party out of the news. That's to be expected, but what we've seen in recent days is that the rest of the country is starting to grasp what we lefties have been saying all along: these people are kind of crazy.
In his new documentary film Lucky, director Jeffrey Blitz explores what happens when lightning strikes -- in the form of a winning lottery ticket. The film, a fascinating exploration of the effects of sudden wealth, raises questions about American society, our relationship to money, and how we define our identities in the modern world.
Blitz was nominated for an Academy Award for his 2002 documentary Spellbound and won an Emmy last year for directing an episode of The Office. He also directed the 2007 feature film Rocket Science. Blitz spoke to the Prospect about his film, the lottery, and the nature of luck. Lucky will be shown on HBO in July.
You may have heard in recent days about Foxconn, a company that owns factories in China that assemble electronics for such companies as Apple, Dell, and HP. You didn't think your iPhone was put together in Cupertino, did you? Of course not. Unfortunately, people working at Foxconn's gigantic Shenzen factory, which makes iPhones and iPads, keep killing themselves, presumably because of the psychological effects of poor working conditions and low pay. In response to the bad publicity, the company announced that it was raising wages 30 percent, which is good to hear.
Boy, it sure is a good thing the Roberts Court isn't a bunch of judicial activists. Here's their latest move:
The Supreme Court stepped into another campaign finance controversy on Tuesday when it blocked Arizona from distributing campaign subsidies to publicly funded candidates facing big-spending opponents.
The justices granted a stay of a portion of the state's 12-year-old Clean Elections program, which authorizes public money for state candidates who bypass most private fundraising. The court stopped the state from providing "matching funds" to those candidates whose opponents are spending large sums of private money.