« October 28, 2007 - November 3, 2007 | Main | November 11, 2007 - November 17, 2007 »
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Romney On Adam And Eve
10 Nov 2007 08:00 pm
They looked "promiscuous." Put a leaf on!
Face Of The Day
10 Nov 2007 06:55 pm
German Chancellor Angela Merkel (L) smiles at US President George W.
Bush (R) during a joint press conference outside Bush's office on his
ranch in Crawford, Texas, 10 November 2007. By Jim Watson/AFP/Getty.
The Week That Was
10 Nov 2007 05:44 pm
It was a really crammed week on the Dish. Here are some of the more substantive posts you might have missed: on the strange notion of an "LGBT community"; the dysfunctional Clinton and Clinton team; the Republican war on Ron Paul; the torture link between Pat Robertson and Rudy Giuliani; and whether the decline in violence in Iraq these past two months means that the Bush administration is vindicated. I'm delighted by the first pieces of good news out of Iraq in a long time, but not at all convinced we have turned a corner, or that the surge somehow erases the fatal errors before it. Oh, and Ron Jeremy's Britney Spears impression.
Quote For The Day
10 Nov 2007 05:07 pm
"The policeman isn't frightened by dissidents. Why should he be? Policemen love dissidents, like the Inquisition loved heretics. Heretics give meaning to the defenders of the faith. Nobody cares more than a heretic. … It means they're playing on the same board. So [Gustav] Husak [the Communist Czech president] can relax; he's made the rules, it's his game. The population plays the other way, by agreeing to be bribed by places at university or an easy ride at work. They care enough to keep their thoughts to themselves; their haircuts give nothing away. But the Plastics don't care at all. They're unbribable. They're coming from somewhere else, from where the Muses come from. They're not heretics. They're pagans," - "Jan" in Tom Stoppard's "Rock 'N Roll", as cited by Fred Kaplan in an engaging piece in Slate.
The relationship between freedom and the unbribability of pagans is not so well understood by today's Christianists.
"Contempt"
10 Nov 2007 03:22 pm
A reader writes:
You write that your
"primary feeling with respect to the Democratic party remains contempt."
Me too.
What single word would you use to denote your primary feeling with respect to the Republican party? On the general principle that evil itself is worse than the failure to resist evil, it seems to me that this word should be stronger than "contempt." But what is it? Loathing? Detestation? Revulsion? None of these seem quite right to me.
Something that combines enormous frustration, disappointment, and shock. Rage?
Classic Clinton Spin
10 Nov 2007 02:14 pm
Yes, she plants questions in the audience. But no, she can't actually admit it, can she? Here's the classic Clinton response to a classic Clinton gambit:
But the Clinton campaign also denied the practice of planting. "It's not a practice of our campaign to ask people to ask specific questions," said Mark Daley, Clinton's Iowa Communications Director. Daley said that when an event is focusing on a specific topic, such as health care or Iraq, "people are encouraged to ask questions in these regards," but denied that they are given specific questions.
But when directly asked if his statements meant that planting does not occur in the Hillary campaign, Daley could only say, "to the best of my knowledge."
"[Planting] is not something that is encouraged in our campaign," he said.
They don't do it, but they didn't do it "to the best of my knowledge." Get used to it.
A Classic Clinton Lie?
10 Nov 2007 12:25 pm
Remember that tip story? It seemed funny to me at first. The story was on NPR, that obvious tool of the VRWC, and detailed how Clinton did not tip any of the waitresses at a diner she visited to highlight the plight of working women. Drudge ran with the story and the blogosphere understandably gobbled it up. Immediately, the Clinton campaign played hardball and called around news organizations to confirm that, in fact, a $100 tip had indeed been left:
Clinton spokesman Phil Singer wrote to NPR in an e-mail: "The campaign spent $157 and left a $100 tip at the Maid-Rite Restaurant. Wish you had checked in with us beforehand."
End of story, one supposes. The Clinton rapid-response site, The Fact Hub, gloated. The manager, Brad Crawford, initially backed the Clintons up:
The manager of the of the restaurant tells First Read the Clinton campaign did, in fact, tip. "They paid their bill, and they left a tip," said Brad Crawford, manager of the Maid Rite restaurant in Toledo, Iowa. "Everybody was satisfied. No question about it."
But guess what? The waitress is sticking by her story that she got no tip. Yep - back to NPR:
"Why would I lie about not getting a tip?" she told NPR. She also maintained that her co-workers at the restaurant had not received tips.
Crawford, meanwhile, has clarified his story:
"Where Hillary was sitting, there was no tip left," Crawford said.
Then this:
A Clinton campaign staffer called on Esterday at the restaurant Thursday after the story aired. The staff member apologized to her and gave her a $20 bill, according to Esterday. The Clinton campaign confirmed that visit. The campaign also produced photocopies of receipts showing $157.46 was paid to Maid-Rite on a VISA card on Oct. 8 for meals consumed by the candidate's entourage. The tip was supposed to have been paid in cash, and the campaign insisted such a payment was made but has declined to make available a staff member who was present at Maid-Rite and left tip money.
Why not? And what's with this weird $20 pay-off to Esterday? If they'd left $100, and knew it had been shared by the wait-staff, why would they need to add $20? Esterday says it was completely improbable that her fellow servers would have received a $100 tip and not shared it with her. I don't know what to believe. I hope someone interviews the fellow servers and gets to the real bottom of this. Yes: it matters. We need to get the name of the staffer who allegedly left the $100 in cash. We need a name of the person who accepted that $100. It wasn't Crawford, because surely he would have immediately told reporters that he had gotten $100 in cash for the wait-staff. It's not something you forget. So who gave it and who received it? Let's find out, shall we?
Why? It's an absolutely trivial story - but its triviality is what's telling.
Continue reading "A Classic Clinton Lie?" »
John DiIulio's Picks
10 Nov 2007 12:04 pm
He's always worth listening to, because, even when I disagree with him, I don't doubt his integrity. It's why he quit the Bush administration. This year, he's backing Huckabee and Clinton - on explicitly Christianist grounds. Hat tip: Clive.
Bill O'Reilly On Gay Teens
10 Nov 2007 11:55 am
He really is deeply hostile to gay people's dignity and right to be who they are.
Email From Iowa
10 Nov 2007 11:34 am
A reader writes:
I just returned from a few days volunteering with the Obama campaign in Iowa. To hear Dean Barnett characterize it as inept and ineffective shows you how skewed armchair analysis can really be. The people on whose doors I knocked on universally described the candidate as thrilling, and the campaign as overpoweringly energized and effective. (I actually got one woman who admitted she felt like the last one on the bus since all her neighbors were now leaning Obama). While Obama may have been a hot topic among the political literati for a couple of years, he was to all purposes a complete unknown to the average Iowa voter until announcing his Presidential run in February. For him to now be tied in polls with a former first lady (a woman who has a fifteen year head-start in name recognition and is perhaps the most well-known senator in the country) and leading the former VP candidate who has campaigned basically nonstop in Iowa since 2004, is nothing short of phenomenal.
What really shines through in Barnett's piece is the poverty of his worldview. For him and the rest of the knuckle-draggers over at Townhall.com, the concept of quiet strength is an oxymoron. Strange, given the prevalence of swaggering cowboy iconography from George "Dead or Alive" Bush and his posse, that they have forgotten all the lessons of manly restraint that I remember being repeated endlessly by Western "alpha dogs" like Marshal Dillon and the Rifleman. Speak quietly but carry a big stick.
Continue reading "Email From Iowa" »
The View From Your Window
10 Nov 2007 10:15 am
Rosso, Mauritania, 6.30 am.
Clinton and the Polls
10 Nov 2007 09:57 am
It behooves me to point out that the poll I cited yesterday is an outlier.
McCain On Kerik
10 Nov 2007 09:49 am
"I don't know Mr. Kerik. I do know that I went to Baghdad shortly after the initial victory and met in Baghdad with (Ambassador Paul) Bremer and (Lt. Gen. Ricardo) Sanchez. And Kerik was there. Kerik was supposed to be there to help train the police force. He stayed two months and one day left, just up and left. That's why I never would've supported him to be the head of homeland security because of his irresponsible act when he was over in Baghdad to try and help train the police. One of the reasons why we had so much trouble with the initial training of the police was because he came, didn't do anything and then went out to the airport and left."
Name Five!
10 Nov 2007 08:23 am
A reader writes:
The next person that tells me that the American people will not elect a black person to the Presidency will be asked to name five specific people - family, friends, acquaintances, neighbors, co-workers, you name it - who will not vote for Obama because he is black. I will then volunteer to contact those people to give them an opportunity to defend themselves against this tired, old, self-aggrandizing libel.
I seem to have more faith in the American people than some Democrats.
Not Adlai
10 Nov 2007 06:10 am
Eugene! A blogger on Obama's real historical parallel.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Darth Abdullah
09 Nov 2007 08:39 pm
Heh:
Entering The U.S.
09 Nov 2007 08:00 pm
A tourist's guide to the welcome you're likely to receive.
LGBTQRSTZ Dissents
09 Nov 2007 06:59 pm
A reader writes:
Re: your post on the LGBTQRSTZ community. Well, you don't live in San Francisco. I do business and socialize with lesbians, gay guys and trans people of both persuasions on a regular basis, and we do, indeed have a community. Just because you don't live in one doesn't mean that none exists. Don't opine about things which you know nothing about.
Another explains:
What T's have in common with LGB's is that primary opposition to all of you comes from your subversion of proper, binary, complementary gender roles. You may be quite different from the inside, but from the outside you look similar. I heard my southern baptist grandfather give a sermon in which one of the ills of the modern world was "men not wanting to be men." I'm pretty sure he had gays in mind.
Surely you know this.
If we are defined by those who hate us, LGBT makes some sense, although it could also include straight women who don't conform to traditional roles, straight men in the same position, and so on, which would mean LGBTSFSMQ or something. My point is that the respective experiences of being gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgender are very distinct and different. And I do not define myself primarily by shared victimhood. Indeed, as many angry LGBTQWhatever readers have insisted, I am not a victim. I am a privileged, white sexist patriarchal rich HIV-positive-with-meds guy. So why, then, pray, am I still regarded (in your acronym at least) as a part of your "community"?
Against The Dolchstoss Right
09 Nov 2007 05:52 pm
Burke urges us:
Whilst men are linked together, they easily and speedily communicate the alarm of any evil design. They are enabled to fathom it with common counsel, and to oppose it with united strength. Whereas, when they lie dispersed, without concert, order, or discipline, communication is uncertain, counsel difficult, and resistance impracticable. Where men are not acquainted with each other's principles, nor experienced in each other's talents, nor at all practised in their mutual habitudes and dispositions by joint efforts in business; no personal confidence, no friendship, no common interest, subsisting among them; it is evidently impossible that they can act a public part with uniformity, perseverance, or efficacy...When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.
In this election, among the central questions, it seems to me, should be: who will restore the rule of law in America? Who will restore constitutional balance? Who will restore habeas corpus? Who will end torture? And who is the wisest in tackling the extremely difficult task of isolating moderate Muslims from Jihadist terrorists across the globe, using measured force to defeat terrorism where necessary, but winning arguments where essential? Who will best secure our departure from Iraq? And who can actually unite decent, patriotic Americans around these goals again?
Waterboarding: A Briefing
09 Nov 2007 05:20 pm
A very useful summary by The Week. No reputable or knowledgeable source says it isn't torture. and there is simply no question that it is illegal - which is why the Bush administration went to such lengths to get war criminals like AEI's John Yoo to argue that the president is bound by no laws and no treaties in the war on terror. But its impact in poisoning and distorting vital intelligence is also crucial to understand. Money quote:
When Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of the Sept. 11 attacks, was waterboarded, he revealed valuable details about the operations of al Qaida, the Bush administration says. But CIA agents say Mohammed also “confessed’’ that al Qaida was plotting to kill former presidents Clinton and Carter and Pope John Paul II, making them realize that he was inventing sensational information to satisfy his interrogators. Another al Qaida operative who was waterboarded, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libbi, blurted out details about the connection between al Qaida and Saddam Hussein, saying that Iraq had trained terrorists in the use of chemical and biological weapons. But al-Libbi later recanted, and the CIA concluded that he “had no knowledge of such training or weapons, and fabricated the statements because he was terrified of further harsh treatment.”
We traded our soul for bad intelligence. The perpetrators need to be brought to justice.
Democrats, Torture, and My Mom
09 Nov 2007 05:05 pm
A reader writes:
"My primary feeling with respect to the Democratic party remains contempt."
I know. I feel the same way, and I'm a full-speed-ahead liberal.
But both of us have to realize what they're up against: a nation of voters just like...my mom. She's a lovely woman, Andrew. I love her to death. Sweet, kind, generous--she's got it all. But whenever I try to talk to her about torture, warrantless wiretapping, the Military Commissions Act, and the rest she just tunes out. Not only has she never heard of any of this stuff, but when I bring it to her attention it's as if she simply cannot believe any of it. She doesn't get angry or anything--she's not a "my country right or wrong" type. It's more of a "these go to eleven" sort of thing: she just can't get it into her head that these awful things are happening.
There are millions and millions and millions of voters just like her in this respect.
Continue reading "Democrats, Torture, and My Mom" »
Race, Sex and Marriage
09 Nov 2007 04:48 pm
Could it be true that women are more concerned about the race of their spouse than men are? One study suggests so, with some intriguing wrinkles:
We found no evidence of the stereotype of a white male preference for East Asian women. However, we also found that East Asian women did not discriminate against white men (only against black and Hispanic men). As a result, the white man-Asian woman pairing was the most common form of interracial dating—but because of the women's neutrality, not the men's pronounced preference. We also found that regional differences mattered. Daters of both sexes from south of the Mason-Dixon Line revealed much stronger same-race preferences than Northern daters.
"Not Gonna Happen"
09 Nov 2007 04:37 pm
A reader writes:
Your reference to polls that show a slight win for Obama over Guiliani, while HRC would lose are meaningless. I don't know whether HRC can win the presidency, but I do know that this country is not going to elect a black president at this time. It is just not going to happen. I was born and raised in the South and I have lived in the Midwest (Iowa) and the West (Utah) and I just don't see it happening. That is unfortunate, but it is the truth.
I suspect this is a very powerful source of Clinton's strength. It is also yet another sign of the Democratic party's problem. They don't trust Americans to agree with them. And so they never say what they believe. They always say what they think they can get away with. The Mukasey collapse is another sign. They do not even trust the American people to reject torture. If they cannot stand up against that, what can they stand up against? And in a world full of cowards, the bullies smell their opportunity. Cheney, Hannity, Giuliani, Limbaugh: they are all in some respects a function of the Democratic Party's deep, deep failure of nerve.
Bush's Economic Legacy
09 Nov 2007 04:34 pm
The proud irresponsibility is the most striking thing - the obliviousness to the future, to the debt the next generation will carry, to the huge increase in the power of government over people's lives that Bush has engineered. Joe Stiglitz is surely right:
The economic effects of Bush's presidency are more insidious than those of Hoover, harder to reverse, and likely to be longer-lasting. There is no threat of America's being displaced from its position as the world's richest economy. But our grandchildren will still be living with, and struggling with, the economic consequences of Mr. Bush.
Neoconservatism and Torture
09 Nov 2007 04:03 pm
A reader writes:
Lately, you have noted that some who are generally labeled neocons (JPod, among others) have either refused to condemn torture or have made statements in support of its use, at least by American forces. Your reaction to this seems to be, "Look, the neocons are actually pro-torture." Let me suggest to you that a "neocon" who supports torture is as much a traitor to the cause as a "conservative" who allows the country to run up huge debts and/or who wishes to inject his own religious beliefs into people's private lives.
Support for human rights is at the very heart of neoconservatism, properly understood.
Continue reading "Neoconservatism and Torture" »
Face Of The Day
09 Nov 2007 03:29 pm
A Pakistan People's Party (PPP) supporter sits in the back of a police truck after his arrest near former Pakistani Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto's home on November 9, 2007 in Islamabad, Pakistan. Bhutto was placed under house arrest to prevent her from participating in a planned rally by her political party, the Pakistan People's Party (PPP). Bhutto broke through police lines outside her home to address the media and condemn the move by President Musharraf and urge him to stick to his commitments of removing his uniform and holding elections. The president declared emergency rule on Saturday, just days before the Supreme Court was to decide on the legitimacy of Musharraf's presidency. By Warrick Page/Getty.
Goldwater's True Heirs
09 Nov 2007 03:15 pm
I'd say: Ron Paul's volunteers. Daniel McCarthy writes a nuanced and graceful essay on similar lines:
If the Republican Party is full of pretenders, where does one look for Goldwater's true heirs?
To answer that question, one has to look to the sharpest division that split the Goldwater movement of the '60s. It wasn't the division between libertarians and traditionalists, it was the division that separated idealistic libertarians and traditionalists alike, the campaign amateurs, from the campaign professionals. The conservative movement still pays lip service to economic liberty, social order, and military strength‹but on all three points, Republicans have become hollow men who have preserved the rites of Goldwaterism but who long ago lost its spirit. That was an amateur spirit - in both the best and worst senses of the word - and it drew together in common cause traditionalists and libertarians as different as Brent Bozell and Goldwater speechwriter Karl Hess.
...Today, nation-building and empire, together with K-Street politics, is about all that animates the Republicans who claim to be following in Goldwater's footsteps. They've lost what the 1960 and 1964 Goldwater movements were really all about, and they won't rediscover what they've lost by furrowing their brows wondering if Goldwaterism was really purely libertarian or fusionist. Goldwater himself was a man of the American West, and his legacy can be claimed by either libertarians or traditionalists - if they can put the principled spirit of the old movement before the emoluments of politics.
$oft Landing
09 Nov 2007 02:54 pm
Gonzales rakes in $40,000 for his first post-Justice speech.
Why The Hannity Right Wants Clinton
09 Nov 2007 02:33 pm
A late-October Quinnipiac University survey underscored this point. Nationally, it showed Clinton being edged out by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, 45% to 43%, within the margin of error. In red states, however, she ran behind him, 49% to 40%, and she trailed, 47% to 41%, in the purple ones. By comparison, Illinois Senator Barack Obama beat Giuliani by a single percentage point (43% to 42%) nationally but held that same margin in the purple states and came within 6 points (45% to 39%) in the red ones.
Hat tip: Isaac.
Quote For The Day II
09 Nov 2007 02:05 pm
"Simply put, voters tell us clearly that Senator Clinton is perceived to have least what they say they want most: honesty. As such, these findings pose a significant hurdle for Senator Clinton to overcome in a general election and are telling to the issue of 'electability,'" - Hari Sevugan, Communications Director, Chris Dodd for President.
What Happened To The Filibuster?
09 Nov 2007 01:31 pm
Greenwald asks an obvious question:
At least 44 Senators claimed to oppose Mukasey's confirmation -- more than enough to prevent it via filibuster. So why didn't they filibuster, the way Senate Republicans have on virtually every measure this year which they wanted to defeat?
And he offers the obvious answer:
The so-called "60-vote requirement" applies only when it is time to do something to limit the Bush administration. It is merely the excuse Senate Democrats use to explain away their chronic failure/unwillingness to limit the President, and it is what the media uses to depict the GOP filibuster as something normal and benign. There obviously is no "60-vote requirement" when it comes to having the Senate comply with the President's demands, as the 53-vote confirmation of Michael Mukasey amply demonstrates. But as Mukasey is sworn in as the highest law enforcement officer in America, the Democrats want you to know that they most certainly did stand firm and "registered their displeasure."
My primary feeling with respect to the Democratic party remains contempt.
Rudy's Guy
09 Nov 2007 01:20 pm
Kerik is indicted. Next up: Rudy's favorite priest? Somehow, Giuliani always attracts the sleaziest, doesn't he?
Abortion and Christianity
09 Nov 2007 01:07 pm
A Christianist takes on Garry Wills:
Stating "Aquinas said" is not the same as saying "Christendom said" or even "the Catholic Church said." The church did not accept his arguments wholesale. For instance, the church ultimately rejected Aquinas' arguments against the immaculate conception of the blessed Virgin Mary. Indeed, Wills' own championing of Aquinas would be a touch more credible if he were equally enthusiastic of Aquinas' arguments that both contraception and homosexual sex are gravely sinful and that only men can be ordained to the priesthood.
Will's op-ed can be read here. With typical MSM cluelessness, the LA Times does not provide a link to the article being rebutted on the same page. Money quote:
John Henry Newman, a 19th century Anglican priest who converted to Catholicism, once wrote that "the pope, who comes of revelation, has no jurisdiction over nature." The matter must be decided by individual conscience, not by religious fiat. As Newman said: "I shall drink to the pope, if you please -- still, to conscience first, and to the pope afterward."
I think this is what Jonah Goldberg, in dissecting my book, called the "divinization of conscience." No. Just the primacy of conscience. Ponnuru's take is here. Not Garry Wills' finest hour, I'd say.
Religion News
09 Nov 2007 12:45 pm
From India: an alleged Hindu-vs-Christian murder - to slake a "blood-thirsty Goddess". Take it away, Sam.
Quote For The Day
09 Nov 2007 12:32 pm
"I have a lot of trouble growing a beard, and he lives in a cave," - Barack Obama, helping Mitt Romney understand he's not Osama. Somehow, I think Romney will forget again.
Clinton In New Hampshire
09 Nov 2007 12:17 pm
One of the polls shows the gap between Clinton and Barack Obama narrowed by more than 10 points. Her biggest decline was seen among older voters. The other shows Clinton's lead down approximately 9 points.
And The Winner Is ...
09 Nov 2007 12:15 pm
The Best Blog of the Year ... PostSecret.com. Where you can read anonymous gems like this:
Not that I'm bitter or anything. Thanks to those who voted for the Dish.
Catholic By Christmas?
09 Nov 2007 11:59 am
The religious evolution of Tony Blair.
Thatcher vs Clinton
09 Nov 2007 11:31 am
A real feminist vs a phony one. Peggy Noonan explains:
The point is the big ones, the real ones, the Thatchers and Indira Gandhis and Golda Meirs and Angela Merkels, never play the boo-hoo game. They are what they are, but they don't use what they are. They don't hold up their sex as a feint: Why, he's not criticizing me, he's criticizing all women! Let us rise and fight the sexist cur.
Liz Mair echoes the argument. One reason I cannot stand Hillary Clinton is that I'm a feminist.
The LGBTQRSTZ "Community"
09 Nov 2007 11:28 am
Rex Wockner expresses something that the gay activist elite too often refuses to engage:
I've been sitting here sort of picking my own brain and asking myself if gay and trans people do in fact have some crucial thing in common. I've read tons of opinion pieces and blog posts on the ENDA war in recent weeks, but none of them really opened my eyes. What do I have in common with a guy who wants to remove his willy, grow breasts, become a woman and get married to a man? From where did this relatively new concept of "the LGBT community" come?
The Croatian-sounding acronym only makes sense from the perspective of the pomo-left, whose control of the major gay groups allows them to dictate what is and what is not kosher for gay people. I support enthusiastically the right of transgender people to live their lives as they wish and to be free from government discrimination. But that question is logically separate from gay rights, and always has been. Many transgender people are heterosexual; most gay people have no internal conflict with their own gender. It remains important to insist that, just because so many in the gay world have been browbeaten into repeating the concept of an "LGBT community", that doesn't mean it exists. I don't really believe there is even a "gay and lesbian community" as such. There are common interests in violating heterosexual norms, but the experience of being a gay man and being a lesbian are often experientially more different than the contrast between many straight women and lesbians or between many straight men and gay men. Gender is often a more powerful identifier than orientation.
Political coalitions are fine and necessary. But when they lead to complete distortion of reality - as in the absurd notion of an LGBT "community" - they are misleading. Many professional "LGBT" activists are so marinated in far-left ideology they do not even see this. That's why I don't use the term LGBT. It's crude and dumb and as ideologically loaded as the previous attempts by the left to coopt language, like "queer."
The Writers Get Smarter
09 Nov 2007 11:13 am
From lame strike slogans to a new, sassy YouTube:
The Clintons: A Continuing Mini-Series
09 Nov 2007 09:52 am
Barack Obama put it gently, with respect to Bill Clinton's increasing role in trying to ensure that he gets his wife (and himself) back into the White House:
"My understanding is President Clinton’s not on the ballot."
The problem is: he is and he isn't. His wife wants to use him as a weapon in the campaign, but still insist that it is she who is running, and not him. She wants to appeal to a return to his policies, but still insists that she does not represent a third term for the 42d president. She wants him on her resume until it's not convenient. Then she pretends to be a feminist. She wants to include in her "experience" her attempt to get everybody's healthcare under her beatifically benign control in the early 1990s. But in turn he insists that her failure to achieve anything - because of her reflexive secrecy, paranoia and over-reach - was actually his fault, not hers. She wants credit for being a feminist, while still running in part on her husband's record - both claiming credit for the good parts and disowning the bad parts. They will keep playing this game - arguing every which way, passing the buck from one to the other, never accepting responsibility, for as long as it gets them past the latest news cycle.
If she is the nominee, it will be the two of them again. The real risk is that it will mean the same never-ending psycho-drama, the same petty sleaze, the same constant beat of marital-political intrigue that we endured in the 1990s. It's worth recalling: just because their enemies were often vile doesn't mean the Clintons didn't give them plenty to work with - often needlessly. Another term of the two of them could well lead to the same kind of sexual scandals that distracted and near-paralyzed affairs of state in the 1990s. If you don't believe that, then you simply haven't grasped the depth of Bill Clinton's needs and compulsions and Hillary Clinton's life-long enabling of them. Their act in power could in turn provoke the same response from the hard right - empowering the Christianists just as they are finally being marginalized, funding them, uniting re-energizing them, rebuilding the GOP around social conservatism and war. I am told by my Clinton-friendly readers that I am obsessed with this matter, seized with hatred, a mouthpiece for Republican talking points, a woman-hater, etc etc. Fine. Whatever. Have your say.
But if you think we would be electing a normal presidential candidate in Hillary Clinton, as opposed to a co-dependent, scandal-drawn power-couple with almost no accountability within their marriage, let alone outside it, then you're welcome to your delusions.
I just want this on the record, ok? If you want to pick them again, do so with your eyes open.
(Photo: Mario Tama/Getty.)
The View From Your Window
09 Nov 2007 09:15 am
Beijing, China, 4.30 pm.
Murdock Clarifies
09 Nov 2007 08:14 am
Yes: we are not water-boarding enough!
Genital Mutilation Update
09 Nov 2007 06:54 am
The Oregon court heard oral arguments yesterday on a ground-breaking circumcision case:
The case pits divorced parents named James and Lia Boldt against each other. The father, a lawyer, recently converted to Judaism and wants to circumcise his 12-year-old son, over whom he has full custody. The mother doesn’t want the circumcision to take place. It’s not clear what the kid wants. The lower court dismissed the wife’s challenge, and she’s appealing the decision.
Yesterday, the mother’s attorney Clay Patrick — a self described “lawyer’s lawyer” — told the court that the circumcision posed “an unreasonable and unnecessarily high risk to the child.” Patrick said that even though the father had full custody, the mother was entitled to a court hearing because the procedure amounts to “sex abuse or physical abuse.” He said to the judges: “If the custodial parent wanted to amputate some other body part, I think the court would step in and say you can’t do that.”
There are some religious freedom arguments involved - if religious freedom means subjecting a twelve-year-old to permanent bodily mutilation. The father says he can do anything he wants to his son's body, barring something like tattooing "a swastika on his forehead." Here's the NYSun coverage. Weird sub-plot:
The anti-circumcision brief notes that during a prior court proceeding unrelated to the circumcision issue, the Boldts agreed that they had a dominant-submissive relationship — in which Mr. Boldt was "god" or "sovereign" — and that sometimes involved Mr. Boldt administering beatings to his wife, who assumed the role of "slave girl." The Boldts' son "must not be abandoned by the courts, to become embroiled in his father's need for a replacement slave … if that is what happened," the anti-circumcision group argued.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
No Blood No Foul?
08 Nov 2007 08:41 pm
A reader writes:
I'd like to add to your argument on the mental side of torture another note from the history of legal torture.
During the century or so of torture authorized by royal warrants in England, the administration of the technique came in two steps. First, the prisoner would be shown the implements of torture, to see if the horror of the thought of the pain his body would suffer on those devices would induce a confession. If that psychological coercion failed, the next step was to begin the actual process of imposing physical pain on the prisoner. Both steps were included in the instructions within torture warrants. Thus, in 1642, when the apprentice glover John Archer was to be put to torture to gain information about a riot outside the Archbishop of Canterbury's palace at Lambeth, he was first given time to stare at the rack -- and only if he remained silent, according to the warrant, the last to be issued in England, was he to be bound onto the machine.
Such mental torture was genuinely coercive as well -- though it did not persuade the luckless Archer to betray any of his fellow rioters.
Continue reading "No Blood No Foul?" »
A Chopstick Bra
08 Nov 2007 07:54 pm
Green marketing goes for the boobs.
Dissent Of The Day
08 Nov 2007 07:33 pm
A reader writes:
Andrew, I'm going to hurl if you don't get off this Ron Paul bandwagon. Aside from the fact he's a whackjob on economic issues, and hopelessly naiive on foreign policy, he is surrounded by really serious hate groups. Visit David Dukes site or the Stormfront site and note the RP columns and endorsements. This isn't some innocent eccentric Congressman riding a popular wave, it is tapping into a very sinister side of the US electorate.
Try to engage the Paulistas on any subject and within 5 minutes they are talking about international bankers, the Trilateral Commission and the CFR. And if you encourage them just a little they'll be talking about the Jews and their control of the US government, and before you know it they're off to the races. Freemasons, Illuminati, the guy on the grassy knoll…..its all there.
I fear you are letting Paul's (ignorant and unreasoned) opposition to the war make you a cheerleader based on the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" theory. He is not your friend, not a friend of this country.
Goodbye To all What?
08 Nov 2007 06:39 pm
A blogger dissents from my argument about Obama:
I think that is wishful thinking, a product of a desire on Sullivan's part to escape history, a classic Romantic, indeed "Transcendentalist" urge.
The truth about Obama is that he is a symbol of the victory of one side. Obama's candidacy is the Iwo Jima, if you will, for the side of the Boomer war that has, after more than three decades, "overcome some day": the hippies, the war protesters, the drop-outs, the integrationists, those hairy, messy, starry-eyed kids who moved to San Francisco with flowers in their hair (well, the ones that got past the drugs).
Read the whole thing. I think my response would be that an integration of the best of the 1960s (and a rejection of the worst) is exactly the post-boomer synthesis I'm talking about. And a former president of the Harvard Law Review, Senator and foreign policy realist does not strike me as a hairy, messy starry-eyed kid. Not that there's anything wrong with hairy, messy starry-eyed kids, of course.
Face of the Day
08 Nov 2007 06:13 pm
O.J. Simpson appears during his preliminary hearing at the Clark County Regional Justice Center 08 November, 2007 in Las Vegas, Nevada. Simpson is appearing in court on charges which include burglary, robbery and assault following an attempted robbery at a Las Vegas hotel in September. By John Locher/AFP/Getty.
Kevin Drum's BMI
08 Nov 2007 06:10 pm
TMI from Althouse:
Actually, [Drum] isn't such a "little" guy: I learned that he has a BMI of 28. I know, maybe he's very muscular, but I'm guessing doughy. I think if you know 2 facts, BMI of 28 + blogger, you can assume doughy. For the sake of argument. And I'm here for an argument.
Ah, the blogosphere. So much better when it's really bitchy.
Incrementalism and Gay Rights
08 Nov 2007 05:46 pm
An interesting post from Feministe on the tranny-free ENDA:
I think history also teaches us that it's important to push for the big goals and to promote inclusive movements. The same-sex marriage issue is a pretty good example. Twenty (even ten) years ago, same-sex marriage was pretty much unheard of, and civil unions were a radical idea. The incrementalist approach would have marriage equality activists pushing for civil unions, and dealing with marriage later. And they did, in states like Vermont and Hawaii, with mixed success. But where the movement actually got it legs was when activists pushed for marriage ‹ they succeeded in putting the big goal on the table and in shifting the conversation leftwards so that civil unions, which were previously pretty out there, were suddenly the moderate position. Had marriage equality activists gone the incrementalist route, I don't think we'd be seeing the kind of debate we're having now (a debate that I do think will come down on the side of justice). I think it would have taken another decade to get to where we are today. If Bush isn't going to support the rights of LGBT people, he isn't going to support the rights of LGBT people. Taking the "T" out isn't going to help. But it will further marginalize the transgender community, and remind us all that certain groups are disposable.
Agreed. But we nonetheless accepted civil unions in Hawaii and Vermont, while using the debates to advance arguments about civil marriage. And it took a huge amount of educational work to get the critical case for marriage equality out there. We haven't done enough work on transgender rights yet. We should do more, I think. But holding everyone else hostage in the meantime makes no sense to me.
A Clinton Bimbo Eruption?
08 Nov 2007 05:35 pm
Now the other one. Silverstein:
If Hillary is having an affair with Abedin it would not be evidence of her lesbianism as much as of her common sense and sound judgment.
The idea that Mrs Clinton is having a lesbian affair is about as credible as the idea that Obama is a closet-Muslim. But this is South Carolina, remember? But if she wants to scotch the lesbian rumors, she really should tip better. Or more transparently anyway.
Freedom On The March Watch
08 Nov 2007 05:19 pm
Bush may be surprised at Russia's creep back toward tyranny, but Burke would understand. From an excellent new essay in the New York Review of Books by Sergei Kovalev:
Is the 71 percent of the vote he received in 2004 convincing evidence of his popularity? I have never met anyone who likes Putin as a person. One answer to the riddle of his electoral success is quite simple and quite sad. For virtually the first time in history, Russian citizens were given the primary instrument of political democracy: direct and competitive elections. But they do not know why they need this instrument or how to make use of it. Eleven hundred years of history have taught us only two possible relationships to authority, submission and revolt. The idea of peacefully replacing our ruler through a legal process is still a wild, alien thought for us. The powers-that-be are above the law and they're unchangeable by law. Overthrowing them is something we understand. But at the moment, we don't want to. We've had quite enough revolution."
A Condom With Teeth
08 Nov 2007 04:52 pm
Put that in your va-jay-jay and he might think twice about raping you. Hilzoy is most amused. Money quote:
The inventor of Rapex, South African Sonette Ehler, a former medical technician, got the idea when a traumatized rape victim lamented to her, "If only I had teeth down there."
It's all another world to me.
Live-Blogging In Pakistan
08 Nov 2007 04:46 pm
A useful, constantly up-dated round-up of the latest from Global Voices.
Clinton's Energy Pirouette
08 Nov 2007 04:33 pm
Obama's position on corn-based ethanol is no better on the substance, but at least his position has stayed the same:
This is what we've come to in the strange world of ethanol politics: a presidential candidate furiously trying to explain away her previous good sense. Sigh. I can't wait until the Iowa primary is over.
Why Can't They Write Better Strike Slogans?
08 Nov 2007 04:21 pm
C'mon, guys. You can do better than "Writers want fair share!" Meanwhile, the slow march toward a perfectly virtual popular culture continues:
The significance of this is that live action movies and animated features operate under different rules. And, additionally, a fully-realized animated actor never ages, dies, or gets fat (unless the producer of the film want him or her to do so). This puts additional power into the hands of film producers and rather less into those of performers. The other major effect may be to further tip the scale in the direction of video games. The electronic games industry is already larger than the film industry and it, too, operates under different rules. Will Hollywood writers turn to electronic games?
Mental Health Break
08 Nov 2007 03:55 pm
Ron Jeremy impersonates Britney Spears. You know you wannit. It's after the jump.
Continue reading "Mental Health Break" »
The View From Your Window
08 Nov 2007 03:44 pm
Newton, Massachusetts, 3.22 pm.
Monkeys and Pro-Bush Republicans
08 Nov 2007 03:23 pm
Now I understand Glenn Reynolds a bit better:
“If little children and primates show pretty much the same pattern you see in adults, it calls into question just how deliberate these rationalization processes are,” [psychologist, Matthew D. Lieberman of the University of California, Los Angeles] says. “We tend to think people have an explicit agenda to rewrite history to make themselves look right, but that’s an outsider’s perspective. This experiment shows that there isn’t always much conscious thought going on.”
NPod and the Gays
08 Nov 2007 03:10 pm
Brian Doherty notices an interesting nugget in this piece on NPod's view that it is always 1937 and he is always Churchill. If you didn't know that the Podhoretz family - Midge and Norm and JPod - are pathologically homophobic, this will help jog your memory:
In Podhoretz's view, "the best people looked to other men for sex and romance," and as a result, didn't much like them being killed by the score on the Continent. "Anyone familiar with homosexual apologetics today will recognize these attitudes."
Tying things back into the 1970s, Podhoretz pointed to the "parallels with England in 1937" and warned that "this revival of the culture of appeasement ought to be troubling our sleep." (A correspondent in a subsequent issue of Harper's would admit that he "had not previously realized that Winston Churchill fought the Battle of Britain almost singlehandedly while England's ubiquitous faggotry sneered and jeered from below.")
Ubiquitous faggotry? Heh.
The Fruits Of Compassionate Conservatism
08 Nov 2007 02:49 pm
Welcome to $9 trillion worth of debt. Ah, the responsibility society that Bush promised us. It just didn't apply to him, did it? Kicker:
The total national debt is actually higher than $9 trillion because it includes borrowing by some agencies that are not covered by the congressional debt limit. That total was $9.086 trillion on Tuesday.
It took the country from George Washington until Ronald Reagan to reach the first $1 trillion in debt.
John Lewis On ENDA
08 Nov 2007 02:40 pm
It's wonderful to see such an unimpeachable icon of the last civil rights movement adding his voice to today's:
Obama-Osama Watch
08 Nov 2007 02:26 pm
"I just want to be very clear and this is obviously in no way an insult to the Muslim community who I respect deeply but I want people to know who I am. I am a Christian. I am a member of Trinity United Church of Christ. I have been for 15 years. I have never practiced Islam and I think it’s important for people not to buy into these sort of fear tactics that people also often use during political games. People need to know the facts. These are the facts as I presented them and I hope that that at least does not become a reason for people not to want to vote for me," - Barack Obama, rebutting one of the remarkably resilient attempted "smears" of his candidacy.
The Oil Hydra
08 Nov 2007 02:07 pm
VDH:
The nearly half-trillion dollars we will soon pay for imported oil does a lot more than prop up Russia's Vladimir Putin, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The petrodollar drain also contributes to our trade deficits, falling dollar and a general demoralization of the American people.
Our oil habit not only makes us dependent on some creepy suppliers, but we look like fools as we work nonstop to hand over our earnings to those who are rich by an accident of sitting atop oil someone else found and developed.
I'm worried. Agreeing with Hewitt and Hanson in the space of half an hour? Are the ideological tectonic plates shifting again?
Hewitt on Giuliani-Robertson
08 Nov 2007 01:55 pm
He thinks - surprise! - it's not a big deal. The key reassurer of Christianists about Giuliani is someone else:
The fellow who matters most to Giuliani's campaign to win over values voters is Ted Olson, followed by Ted Olson, followed by Ted Olson. Christian conservatives know that John Paul Stevens is 87; Justice Ginsberg 74; Justices Scalia and Kennedy 71; Justice Breyer 69 and Justice Souter 68. Ted Olson is easily the most respected conservative lawyer in the United States and a big Rudy supporter. If Giuliani is going to bring large numbers of conservative activists to his banner, he needs to keep the change facing the Supreme Court front and center. Pat Robertson doesn't matter. The age of the six justices does.
I think Hewitt is largely right about this. I'd back Romney over Giuliani in a heartbeat. Romney may be without principles but he is not without decency. (It behooves me to note, on behalf of all canines - yes, the beagles are clear on this - that Stephen Bainbridge disagrees with me on this one.)
Is Trippi An Obama Mole?
08 Nov 2007 01:36 pm
Jeff Dinelli wants to know.
"She Was Never Supposed To Win Iowa"
08 Nov 2007 01:25 pm
A Clintonista vents.