Shorter Caitlin Flanagan: The fact that Hillary Clinton gave her cat to another person who would care for it makes her evil. Said cat also had a massive impact on American politics.
No, I’m serious. See also Thers; alas, I doubt we’ve heard the last of this idiocy.
Verbatim Caitlin Flanagan: “I have little interest in national politics.” You say “little interest in,” I say “no apparent knowledge of,” we agree that you should not be writing for the subject for a prominent national publication, and we both go home.
Says Huckabee: most” of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were “clergymen.” This is true to the extent that 1 out of 56 = “most.”
Of course, what matters even more than what the Framers personally believed is the Constitution they signed, which is a secular document for a secular state.
You may have heard about this embrace of utter crackpottery from new social conservative darling Mike Huckabee:
Speaking before a gathering of Christian conservative voters, GOP presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee said legalized abortion in the United States was a holocaust.
“Sometimes we talk about why we’re importing so many people in our workforce,” the former Arkansas governor said. “It might be for the last 35 years, we have aborted more than a million people who would have been in our workforce had we not had the holocaust of liberalized abortion under a flawed Supreme Court ruling in 1973.”
Leaving aside the rather problematic economic assumptions here, we have two classic pieces of stupidity and exploitation common to the rhetoric of the forced pregnancy lobby. First, if abortion is a “holocaust,” one wonders why most anti-choicers believe that the alleged primary perpetrators of this genocide should face fewer legal sanctions than if they spat on the sidewalk. And Huckabee would have signed the North Dakota law that also exempted women from punishment for contributing to the “holocaust.” Does Huckabee believe that Eichmann should have been exempt from punishment? Or maybe he should stop using this idiotic and spectacularly offensive analogy?
In addition to the bizarre causal logic, the “Oh no! Giving reproductive rights to women means more furriners undermining the values of Good White Americans by coming here to feed their families!” argument has perhaps broader implications than he intends. If the key problem with abortion is lower birthrates, forget abortion: we need to stop the production and distribution of contraception immediately! Passing arbitrary laws forcing poor women to obtain unsafe abortions will do nothing while Trojans are freely produced! Oh the humanity!
Again, there are few things as bizarre in American politics as “pro-lifers” who demand constant congratulation for having Unyielding Moral Principles as they advance positions that are a moral, legal, logical, and political shambles.
Via Sam Boyd, I bring you this Kirchick Komedy Klassic:
Earlier this week, I speculated in a bloggingheads with Jon Keller, political reporter for the Boston CBS affiliate and author of The Bluest State: How Democrats Created the Massachusetts Blueprint for American Political Disaster (which I reviewed here) that Massachusetts might go red if Rudy Giuliani — and, possibly, John McCain — is the Republican presidential nominee.
First, you have the amusing asusmption any Democrat not currently cashing a paycheck from Marty Peretz is fooled by the “McCain is a Really A Closet Liberal” scam. Then you have the claim that the GOP is live in the Massachusetts electoral college. The evidence for this seems to be that 1)the Democrats won an off-year Congressional election by a slighter lesser margin than might have been expected, and 2)more than two decades ago a Republican incumbent carried the state that went for George McGovern as part of a massive Republican landslide. Well, I’m convinced! I do hope, however, that following the strategery of Karl Rove, Super Genius (TM), that they don’t neglect other likely GOP pickup candidates like California, Rhode Island, and Washington, D.C.
Even for Bruce Tinsley, this is incomprehensible. Does he really think that benching Hope Solo was some form of racism? Beats me. I think we need the Comics Curmudgeon to weigh in here…
Finally, we’re getting one; hopefully, unlike most of the rest of the series, this will actually be a good game…
…If the first inning is an indication that pre-All-Star-Break Dice-K has shown up…that would be a problem. A pitcher’s duel would actually be appropriate, sort of the opposite of the first Beckett/Sabathia game…
…Ah, yes, another installment in the desultory return of “every play is a force play” umpiring…
It’s good that the Red Sox have a player with the grit, determination, clutchitude, and leadershipiosity of J.D. Drew rather than a choker like Derek Jeter!
In this week’s installment, she contributes to the Ridiculous Martyrdom of Larry Summers by backing up nonsense spoken by Christina Hoff Sommers :
How will we ever be able to talk about sex differences in an interesting way if we’re not allowed to study them? If the subject is an academic taboo, then the same old cliches will just live on for another generation. Or ten generations.
Of course, nobody criticized Summers for suggesting that academics should study sex differences. He was criticized for suggesting that the most likely reason that women were underrepresented in some academic fields was an innate lack of mental capacity although this is not supported by solid scientific evidence and Summers had no expertise in the field. As Brian Leiter put it:
Alas, it turns out that no one was objecting to research being done on the hypothesis. They objected, rather, to the chief administrator of a research university–a man with no scholarly expertise in the area (as in none)–floating an hypothesis potentially damaging to women for which there is, at present, no well-confirmed scientific support (as in none).
As I’ve said before, the context is also important. Summers was not a random academic reporting on his research (and, indeed, nobody is calling for Steven Pinker’s tenure to be revoked because of his male supremacist just-so stories.) He was the president of an elite university that, as it happens, had a poor record of attracting and retaining female faculty in the sciences under his tenure. Not alienating the remaining faculty by saying dumb things is part of his job. At any rate, the criticism of Summers’s remarks did not establish a taboo against conducting scientific research into sex differences. It may have reflected a taboo against university presidents justifying gender discrimination by engaging in the same kind of pseudo-scientific speculation that once caused women to be unfairly excluded from elite universities, the legal profession, etc. etc., but this is a different matter entirely (and a good thing.)
Relatedly, make sure to read this from Cosma Shalizi (via CT.)
..It’s not terribly important to my overall argument — what matters is that he considers it more important than discrimination — but in comments Ken C. is correct that Summers only placed a lack of aptitude as the second most important factor exonerating his horrible record with female faculty. First was the “high-powered job hypothesis,” his description of which was somewhat problematic in its own right for reasons I’ve discussed with respect to Supreme Court clerks; it’s bizarre to discuss the fact that women are expected to do far more of the domestic work as a category distinct from gender discrimination. (It’s also problematic given that gender discrimination remains durable at non-elite institutions where tenured professors don’t have to work 80 hour weeks.)
Yeah, I have to concede that I completely botched that one. I suppose “the Bush administration is always wrong” may not be literally true, but it’s a pretty effective decision rule.
To answer Atrios’s question, the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws has been held to apply principally to criminal, not civil, cases. Also, the implicit purpose of the provision is to act as a constraint on the state’s power to punish the individual by retroactively criminalizing acts; state action that exempts individuals (or corporations) from punishment or liability doesn’t really apply.
More importantly, of course, immunizing corporations who assisted the government in illegal acts regardless of the facts is certainly appalling even if it’s constitutional.
Yglesias identifies a key strategy for opposing progressive change without openly opposing the underlying goals:
One has to keep in mind the broader picture here, too. The right’s main tactic whenever Democrats want to do something that might be helpful to any group of citizens everywhere is to identify some even more desperately poor group and claim that their opposition to helping out is driven by a die-hard commitment to these truly needy types. Try to help the working class, and the underclass are trotted out for moral blackmail. Try to help the middle class, and what about the poor? But then when push comes to shove, these are the same people trying to cut section eight housing programs, trying to cut food stamps, etc. The only people they’re really serious about helping are the extremely wealthy beneficiaries of their tax cuts.
Exactly. I think my favorite somewhat recent example of this feeble diversionary tactic was David Velleman’s opposition to grad student unionization at NYU on the grounds that janitors in Houston are even worse off. (And, of course, the fact that this unionization might lead to mild restrictions on his own privileges rather than someone else’s is just an amazing coinky-dink!)