When I hear that someone has combined perhaps the two most annoying contemporary American ideologies–gun nuttery and communitarianism –for some reason I’m reminded of Billy Martin telling a fellow manager that if he ever saw Martin put Shooty Babbit (who was apparently to playing second base as Reynolds is to political analysis) in the A’s lineup “I want you to shooty me.”
Also, how can someone call himself both a “communitarian” and “libertarian”? That’s almost as incoherent and silly as calling yourself a “libertarian Jacksonian Whig.” Oh wait…
…thinking of “libertarian communitarianism” reminds me of John Holbo’s classic discussion of David Frum. I guess you can reconcile the two via “dark satanic Millian liberalism”–i.e. that capitalism is good only insofar as it reliably produces cowering conformists.
Sawicky rounds up some analysis of Milton Friedman.
J. Goodrich: “Of course [Joe] Klein is not alone with these feelings. Joan Walsh at Salon points out that other commentators were also relieved to finally find someone that matched their idea of a manly Democrat…Cooties are scary. And girls have them.”
Andrew Sullivan and Howard Fineman, this week on the Chris Matthews Show (“Millionaire Pundit Values on a Cable Access Budget!”):
SULLIVAN (1/28/07): I think she’s been a very sensible senator. I think—find it hard to disagree with her on the war. But when I see her again, all me—all the cootie-vibes resurrect themselves. I’m sorry—
PANEL: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
HOWARD FINEMAN: That’s a technical term!
SULLIVAN: I must represent a lot of people. I actually find her positions appealing in many ways. I just can’t stand her.
Somebody may also wish to inform Linda Hirshman that all of the people in question who vote junior-high personality impressions over policy in fact have penises.
[Also at TAPPED.]
So if someone had tapes of themselves having sex released to the general public because their idiot partner forgot to pay her storage bill, well, you might feel some sympathy for this person. If the person is question is “Girls Gone Wild” asshole-in-chief Joe Francis, however, I’d say not so much.
(More on Francis’ legendary respect for privacy and personal dignity here and here.)
(Via Bob Geiger.)
For a non-photographic discussion of sweaty media sexism, see J. Goodrich.
Atrios details the case of Wayne Dumond–a convicted rapist who was released under heavy pressure from governor and likely Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, and subsequently raped and murdered at least one and probably two women. As Atrios says, this wouldn’t necessarily be a massive black stain on Huckabee’s record–as long as we don’t keep everyone in jail forever, such tragedies are inevitable–except that the pressure in this case came from paranoid fantasizing about The Clenis. I was particularly amazed to see this article in the Voice, which is very representative of writing about Clinton “scandals”:
DuMond had been accused of raping a Clinton cousin in 1984 and was hog-tied and castrated before he even went to trial.
He used to be enraged about it, especially when the cracker sheriff, who was a pal of the rape victim’s father, scooped up DuMond’s balls, put them in a jar, and showed them off.
“They were mine. Those were my testicles,” DuMond told a sickened courtroom in 1988. “He didn’t have no right to take them and he didn’t have no right to show them around and he didn’t have no right to flush them down the toilet.”
This is yet another Clinton saga of genitalia that fell into the wrong hands.
Ha-ha! See, Bill Clinton got a blow job, so clearly he was somehow responsible for reprehensible vigilante tactics (spruced up with an unsubstantiated story from a convicted violent felon taken at face value) used against a rapist. This kind of idiocy, though, is basically how most stories about phony Clinton pseudo-scandals from Whitewater on down proceeded: find some distant (or imagined) Clinton relationship to someone who knew someone who did something bad in Arkansas, find some lurid details, and suggest that one or both Clintons were behind everything without any actual evidence or causal logic. (See, for example, the stories about Mena discussed in the country’s most prominent conservative op-ed pages.) And while many of these stories had their origin with GOP operatives and wingnut hacks, they also spread throughout the media, including ostensibly lefty alt-weeklies and the mainstream press. The Whitewater non-scandal was pushed obsessively by the New York Times, and MSNBC would happily invite you on to discuss your unsubstantiated claims that Bill Clinton personally killed several people. About the Clintons, you can say anything based on nothing in the most prestigious media forums.
…John Amato has some suggestions for Tim Russert.
As anyone with a passing familiarity with the nation’s op-ed pages or center-left political publications is aware, there is a cottage industry of affluent white men in liberal urban centers asserting that reproductive freedom would be much better off if states and Congress had the unlimited power to regulate abortion. Since such “contrarian” arguments have the unfortunate drawback of being baldly erroneous, a second cottage industry has emerged: trying to restate these arguments in terms that might be defensible to someone who actually cares about reproductive freedom and knows what they’re talking about. I recently pointed out that if one were to use the same empirical standards for evaluating Roe v. Wade that Ben Wittes does for his beloved Bush v. Gore, you will find that far from having a “legitimacy problem” Roe is broadly popular. In comments, Alon Levy argues that this is misleading:
Just asking about Roe in general yields big majorities for. Asking concrete questions about when and for which reasons abortion should be available regularly yields responses that are significantly more restrictive than what Roe permits.
Questions that ignore Roe but instead ask about whether abortion should be “subject to greater restrictions than it is now” regularly get large majorities for greater restrictions.
This is true enough as far as it goes–public opinion on abortion is more contradictory and ambivalent than general polls on Roe reflect. (However, how these ambivalences cut depend on what information is provided; questions like “The Supreme Court has held that states can regulate abortion in almost any way they see fit short of a ban–is this too restrictive?” or “Ben Wittes and William Saletan argue that rich women in urban centers should be able to get abortions for any reason, and poor women in many states should not be able to obtain abortions for any reason but the life of the mother. Do you agree?” would yield rather less favorable answers for pro-criminalization and “centrist” positions than the questions Alon cites.) The problem is that this is precisely the opposite of what Wittes argues. Wittes, you’ll remember, believes that public opinion is enormously supportive of abortion rights (which, combined with his bizarrely naive conception of how legislative power functions, produces his ludicrously Pollyanish predictions about a world without Roe) but is very hostile to Roe. This is simply false. Moreover, given that Wittes is committed to the (farcical) claim that public opposition to Roe stems from people’s careful consideration of its legal craftsmanship, he’s not really in a position to argue that many people don’t even understand its holding (although, myself, I have no doubt that this is true.) Wittes’ famous article is simply nonsense all the way down, and as the double standard he employs when discussing the conservative decisions he likes makes clear his commitment to taking the Republican side in legal and political disputes is considerably strongly than his nominal commitment to reproductive freedom.
Another excellent article about the Wilson case, with a useful comparison with other cases of consensual sexual relations with minors that received much lighter sentences:
But wait. It gets worse. At the same time that Wilson was being sentenced to 10 years in prison, down the hall in the courthouse, a 27-year-old high school teacher got a slap on the wrist (probation, 90 days in jail, not prison) for having sexual intercourse with an 16-year-old male student.
Now you tell me: which act represented a greater breach of trust and societal expectations? Which act has the greater potential for harm?
The District Attorney — who makes the decision on how to handle cases: which ones to prosecute, which to drop — charged Wilson with rape and aggravated child molestation. The jury found Wilson not guilty of the rape charge.
According to the jury forewoman, the jury did not know that by convicting Wilson of the aggravated child molestation charge that they had just sentenced him to a mandatory 10 years in prison. “People were screaming, crying, beating against the walls,” she recalls. “I just went limp. They had to help me to a chair.”
Yet right down the hall, Alexander High School English teacher Kari McCarley was standing trial for “carrying on a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old male student.” She was married, with children. This wasn’t a one-time sexual encounter. Her sentence? Three years probation and 90 days in jail.
Part of the problem was the poorly drafted statute; a prosecutor should have never even had the ability to pursue a mandatory 10-year sentence in this case. But there can be no serious question that the prosecutor grossly abused his discretion. I also agree with TChris that the classification (and the application of the statute) should have raised serious due process issues.
Glenn “More Genocide, Less Trouble” Reynolds, 11/11/03: “The real problem with the Iraq war is that it’s (1) waged by a Republican President; and (2) obviously in the United States’ national interest. To some people, those characteristics are enough to brand it evil.”
Jonah Goldberg, 1/25/07: “The 11th Commandment for liberals seems to be, “Thou shalt not intervene out of self-interest.” Intervening in civil wars for humanitarian reasons is OK, but meddling for national security reasons is not.”
Even leaving aside the “Democrats are unpatriotic” crap…yeah, sacrificing the lives of more than 3,000 troops and a trillion dollars to install a more terrorist friendly “state” in Iraq: now that’s using your formidable judgment to advance the national interest!
ESPN has a good article about the appalling case of Genarlow Wilson. One thing puzzles me about the dodging responsibility game described here:
It’s frustrating work. No one involved believes Wilson should be in jail for 10 years.
The prosecutors don’t.
The Supreme Court doesn’t.
The legislature doesn’t.
The 15-year-old “victim” doesn’t.
The forewoman of the jury doesn’t.
Privately, even prison officials don’t.
Yet no one will do anything to free him, passing responsibility around like a hot potato.
Notice anything missing? It seems to me that the governor could simply end this gross injustice by issuing a pardon. [I am mistaken: see update.] While in some cases like the use of pardons is problematic because it’s such a capricious process, here the use of the pardon would correct an obviously arbitrary sentence. (I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume that consensual oral sex among teenagers is not a highly unusual activity in the state of Georgia, and very rarely lands people in the clinker.) Retroactively amending legislation actually seems like an inferior remedy. At any rate, Wilson remains in jail because of Sonny Perdue’s callous indifference about a tragic injustice, and it seems to be that this should be a political issue.
…A commenter answers my question: apparently the pardon power in Georgia doesn’t rest with the governor.
Also, Matt makes a good point in comments:
Well, it’s clear that “the prosecutors don’t” is true in the way that “George W. Bush wants to cut the deficit” is true; the DA says he doesn’t want him to spend 10 years in prison, and he has the means to free him, but he won’t do it. Though he says that if Wilson grovels a bit he might think about it. But his view is that it serves him right for insisting on a jury trial.