The coolest place on the internet, according to this tagline.
AskArchiveFAQ

January 27, 2014
Stephen Glass, the guy who made up a bunch of stories in The New Republic and shattered the glass ceiling for folks like Jayson Blair and Jonah Lehrer, can’t become a lawyer in California. The state’s supreme court turned him down.

Stephen Glass, the guy who made up a bunch of stories in The New Republic and shattered the glass ceiling for folks like Jayson Blair and Jonah Lehrer, can’t become a lawyer in California. The state’s supreme court turned him down.

16:02 // 2 months ago
June 17, 2013
Here’s a piece for the libertarians out there: The New Republic has a story laying out the potential for Rand Paul to follow in his movement-creating dad’s footsteps, noting that Rand’s strength is that he’s a strong political player, not just an ideologue. The NSA scandal only plays into that, Julia Ioffe writes: “This is a moment tailored for Rand Paul, more than for Marco Rubio or Chris Christie, or anyone else in the potential Republican 2016 lineup.” Read on for a pretty solid talker.

Here’s a piece for the libertarians out there: The New Republic has a story laying out the potential for Rand Paul to follow in his movement-creating dad’s footsteps, noting that Rand’s strength is that he’s a strong political player, not just an ideologue. The NSA scandal only plays into that, Julia Ioffe writes: “This is a moment tailored for Rand Paul, more than for Marco Rubio or Chris Christie, or anyone else in the potential Republican 2016 lineup.” Read on for a pretty solid talker.

10:20 // 10 months ago
February 25, 2013
From the New Republic’s cover story on Aaron Swartz:

Other hackers have killed themselves, too. Before there was Aaron Swartz, there was Ilya Zhitomirskiy, a 22-year-old founder of the social-network site Diaspora*, frequently described as the “anti-Facebook” because it gives users control over their personal data rather than packaging it for advertisers. Before Ilya, there was Len Sassaman, a brilliant cryptographer who helped make Internet communications anonymous, especially when governments or powerful corporations might want to nose in on them. Before Sassaman, there was Christopher Lightfoot, who was revered for his daring, Swartz-style bulk downloads of British government data. And before Lightfoot, there was Gene Kan, who made a name for himself in the peer-to-peer movement—the technology used to swap music and video files outside the reach of their copyright holders.
The particulars of each case were different, of course. Like Swartz, Sassaman had the occasional run-in with the government over his online exploits. Kan seemed to briefly make his peace with the powers-that-be by going to work for Sun Microsystems, the Silicon Valley giant. And, in any case, who can really say why anyone might take that tragic, irreversible step? But all in their own way came across as highly concentrated distillations of computer hacker culture: precocious, technically brilliant, bracingly idealistic. All were prone to disillusionment when reality fell short of their vision for it.

The piece ends on a tough question — whether we should put such child prodigies on a pedestal. “We want people doing this work, of course—in many cases, we need them doing it,” Noam Scheiber writes. "It’s just far from clear that we want them doing it before they can drive a car or buy a beer. In Aaron Swartz’s case, too many adults refused to see that a child isn’t a messiah or even a leader of men, however brilliant he may be. A child is just a child." Thoughts? Agree/disagree?

From the New Republic’s cover story on Aaron Swartz:

Other hackers have killed themselves, too. Before there was Aaron Swartz, there was Ilya Zhitomirskiy, a 22-year-old founder of the social-network site Diaspora*, frequently described as the “anti-Facebook” because it gives users control over their personal data rather than packaging it for advertisers. Before Ilya, there was Len Sassaman, a brilliant cryptographer who helped make Internet communications anonymous, especially when governments or powerful corporations might want to nose in on them. Before Sassaman, there was Christopher Lightfoot, who was revered for his daring, Swartz-style bulk downloads of British government data. And before Lightfoot, there was Gene Kan, who made a name for himself in the peer-to-peer movement—the technology used to swap music and video files outside the reach of their copyright holders.

The particulars of each case were different, of course. Like Swartz, Sassaman had the occasional run-in with the government over his online exploits. Kan seemed to briefly make his peace with the powers-that-be by going to work for Sun Microsystems, the Silicon Valley giant. And, in any case, who can really say why anyone might take that tragic, irreversible step? But all in their own way came across as highly concentrated distillations of computer hacker culture: precocious, technically brilliant, bracingly idealistic. All were prone to disillusionment when reality fell short of their vision for it.

The piece ends on a tough question — whether we should put such child prodigies on a pedestal. “We want people doing this work, of course—in many cases, we need them doing it,” Noam Scheiber writes"It’s just far from clear that we want them doing it before they can drive a car or buy a beer. In Aaron Swartz’s case, too many adults refused to see that a child isn’t a messiah or even a leader of men, however brilliant he may be. A child is just a child." Thoughts? Agree/disagree?

11:10 // 1 year ago
January 27, 2013
12:52 // 1 year ago
July 4, 2012

Shattered Glass, put together again? Disgraced journalist pushes for second chance as a lawyer

Remember Stephen Glass? The man at the center of a major Clinton-era journalistic scandal at The New Republic (shown above in film trailer form) is looking to make a comeback — as a lawyer. Glass, now 39, has poured tons of money into the effort, and has worked hard to rehabilitate himself and his image, even going through therapy. And his boss, trial lawyer Paul Zuckerman, is one of the strongest advocates for his push to get a California law license, giving him a second chance after reflecting on his own earlier substance abuse. ”People can say he is fooling me,” Zuckerman said. “But I truly know the man.”

11:27 // 1 year ago
May 14, 2012
thenewrepublic:

In case you missed it: We’ve unveiled TNR Reader, a collection of the best writing across the web curated with a TNR sensibility. Check out http://reader.tnr.com/

This is really cool. Very slick summaries, akin to Romenesko when he was still at Poynter.

thenewrepublic:

In case you missed it: We’ve unveiled TNR Reader, a collection of the best writing across the web curated with a TNR sensibility. Check out http://reader.tnr.com/

This is really cool. Very slick summaries, akin to Romenesko when he was still at Poynter.

12:26 // 1 year ago
April 3, 2012
19:59 // 2 years ago
March 9, 2012
22:24 // 2 years ago
August 11, 2011
22:55 // 2 years ago
June 28, 2011
thepoliticalnotebook:

Twenty-two years ago, Andrew Sullivan wrote the cover story for The New Republic, arguing for gay marriage. TNR is reprinting the original story, “Here Comes the Groom: A Conservative Case for Gay Marriage,” published in August of 1989. Sullivan takes an interesting approach (a socially conservative one) to arguing for gay marriage. Many who agree with his conclusions would probably disagree with how he got there. It’s definitely, however, this morning’s read.

…gay marriage could both avoid a lot of tortured families and create the possibility for many happier ones. It is not, in short a denial of family values. It is an extension of them.


Great idea. Great way to celebrate a major victory in this fight. Andy was totally ahead of the curve on this issue — by a couple of decades, as it turns out.

thepoliticalnotebook:

Twenty-two years ago, Andrew Sullivan wrote the cover story for The New Republic, arguing for gay marriage. TNR is reprinting the original story, “Here Comes the Groom: A Conservative Case for Gay Marriage,” published in August of 1989. Sullivan takes an interesting approach (a socially conservative one) to arguing for gay marriage. Many who agree with his conclusions would probably disagree with how he got there. It’s definitely, however, this morning’s read.

…gay marriage could both avoid a lot of tortured families and create the possibility for many happier ones. It is not, in short a denial of family values. It is an extension of them.

Great idea. Great way to celebrate a major victory in this fight. Andy was totally ahead of the curve on this issue — by a couple of decades, as it turns out.

(via thenewrepublic)

9:53 // 2 years ago