The Cats may be 8-9 and in the midst of their worst season in recent memory, but you can’t complain about a victory over one of the premier sources of evil in the modern world..
How does Obama win the Democratic nomination for President? According to Mickey, denouncing affirmative action and moving hard right on immigration are key. If that doesn’t work, I’m sure that busting some unions, threatening to invade Iran, and calling for the elimination of Social Security will do the trick…
…incidentally, in the “credit where due” department, Hitch wrote a decent enough article on Huck and the Confederate flag a couple of days ago.
As best I can fathom, this appears to be a sincere fan letter to Jonah Goldberg:
When I see people at Crooked Timber open threads asking why they should take you seriously, and spend hundreds of comments calling you an idiot, [. . .] then I want to cry. They’re being dishonest and cruel and not allowing you to make a single mistake. They’re setting you up to fail.
They have no understanding of how to be a genuine scholar. I work like hell to help those around me have the best arguments possible, even if I disagree with those arguments. I understand the spirit Liberal Fascism was written in. And I’m sorry you live in a nation of genuine fascists, and I mean that word in its worst sense. There’s no way I would accept the attitude of Henry Farrell from anyone around me; it is something I would end friendships over.
I’m just amazed you can take this abuse and keep going strong . . .
Goldberg responds by reassuring his readers that he’s going to be OK and that his unserious critics are seriously not serious and that he won’t take them seriously because he’s rubber and they’re glue.
He also wheels out the novel claim that he’s being attacked because he’s “hit something real,” a defensive gesture I’ll be sure to remember when my new project, Freemasons Rule the World, hits bookstores next month. I expect to take some knocks for my argument — which essentially exposes the fact that Freemasons control the world — but I’m pretty sure my anti-Masonic friends will understand that I’m actually making a very cautious, thoughtful argument. In spite of what the title suggests — it comes from an episode of The Simpsons, an allusion my Masonic critics are bound to miss — I don’t argue that contemporary Freemasons actually control the world. Instead, I’m interested in the ways that important Freemasons around the world exert control over lots of things that are in the world, like governments, the global economy, science, and those sorts of things. It’s a work of political theory.
If mouthbreathers choose to mistake my point, I’ll take comfort in knowing that Frederich Hayek, Charles Murray, Allan Bloom — and of course Jonah Goldberg — went through the same ordeal. And if Matthew Yglesias doesn’t like it, it’s because he’s totally mad at me for something I wrote about him, and also because the goatee I’m sporting these days makes him envious.
(Meantime, if LGM readers could do me a favor and read some books on Freemasonry and find the evidence I’ll need to make my argument, I’d be grateful. We’re running up against some deadlines here, and I’m afraid the publisher might have to delay the book’s release again.)
. . . . Praise be! Much as Thomas DiLorenzo appears to have written the rough draft for Goldberg’s book in 1994, Jon Swift — proving that not all conservatives are fascists — has already done the conceptual heavy lifting for my expose of Freemasonry….
In honor of it’s 35th Anniversary, here’s my three part series on why Roe v Wade was correctly decided:
The short version is that 1)it’s flatly false to say that the right identified in Roe had no previous doctrinal basis, and 2)properly understood the decision is consistent with the general democracy-promoting tenor of Warren Court-era jurisprudence. See also Douglas in Doe v. Bolton–who draws out the precedential connections more carefully than Blackmun–and Stevens in Thornburgh, who correctly points out that it’s ridiculous to claim that a woman has a fundamental right to avoid pregnancy before the fact but has no reproductive rights at all after the fact.
Finally, for new readers my piece in the Prospect explaining why the preferred High Broderite policy of “compromising” by providing formal protection to the rights of women who least need the protection while throwing the rights of those who do need it under the bus is completely unacceptable.
One commenter was upset about the exclusion of Lust, Caution from the Oscars. Depite being an Ang Lee fan, I’m not really too upset. It’s a very good picture, but my guess is that when I compile a top 10 list it will settle towards the bottom. I didn’t agree with complaints about slack pacing in Brokeback–the sheep herding sequences looked great and were necessary to set the mood–but I did find it problematic here. And the political intrigue wasn’t quite detailed enough for my liking. The period detail was outstanding as always, and the acting very good, but there were other movies this year that I like more.
All of this is a way of bringing the sad news that Heath Ledger has passed away at age 28,
in what was most likely a suicide [see update]. He had separated from his partner (partner-on-film Michelle Williams) and their daughter last year. His performance in Brokeback, however, will live as long as people are interested in movies. R.I.P.
…Deborah Lipp says in comments that police have not found evidence of suicide, and his survivors do not want it described in that way. My apologies for jumping the gun.
As various elements of the presidential primary frustrate and irritate, let’s take a moment to savor the silver lining. Paul Kiel makes the case here. Whatever happens, we can all take solace that the nation has solidly rejected the most noxious presidential candidate out there resoundingly. It’s especially worth savoring when you consider that Guilliani started out as a frontrunner in the polls. The more voters were exposed to Guilliani’s campaign, the quicker he sunk like a stone. No matter what happens from here on out, things could have been a lot worse.
More from Miss Laura.
About he best I can say about this award is that winning it might be slightly more prestigious than emerging victorious from a mayonnaise-eating contest.
Perusing the list of some of the finalists, we find the soaring literary contributions of Norman Podhoretz, Michael Ledeen, Hugh Hewitt, Melanie Phillips, and Amity Schlaes — all of whom were unfairly overlooked by the National Book Critics Circle and Pulitzer committees, who seem averse to the disgorgements of noted hacks.
Maybe I’m forgetting something, but relative to the quality of the year I would be surprised if this isn’t the best selection of best picture nominees of my lifetime. Granted, it’s marred by Schnabel relegated to a Best Director nomination while Atonement takes Diving Bell‘s rightful place in what I assume (although I haven’t seen Atonement yet, so maybe even it’s good) to be the Middlebrow Doorstop spot (although having only one is pretty amazing in itself.) Still, There Will Be Blood and No Country are both excellent-to-exceptional films, Juno very good, and while the enjoyable Michael Clayton is overmatched in this heat (and I would have preferred Lumet/Before the Devil) it’s certainly better than most recent Best Picture winners (Crash, Shakespeare in Love, Beautiful Mind, Gladiator,
I Can’t Believe There is Soulessness and Homophobia In American Suburbia! American Beauty, ugh.) It’s an unusually strong collection of pictures. I wonder how it happened?
…looking at the other nominees, Away From Her/Polley also would have been a good choice, although at least Christie got a nomination.
So, as you might have heard, today is the 35th Birthday/Anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, which was handed down on January 22, 1973. The organizers of blog for choice day have suggested we all write about why it’s important to “vote pro-choice.” While it’s true that it’s important to vote “pro-choice,” I want to write about more than that — why it’s important to vote for someone who really understands what it means to want reproductive justice. In order to understand this, it’s important to know how far Roe got us, and how far we’ve got to go.
Roe was a huge step. It said that the right to abortion was constitutionally-grounded and was too important — to fundamental — to be left to the whims of the state governments or to come and go at the will of the majority. Though the language of the decision had more to say about doctors than about women, the message of Blackmun’s decision was loud and clear: women have a fundamental constitutional right to control their reproductive lives, not to let their reproductive lives control them.
Immediately after Roe, Medicaid funds became available for poor women to have abortions, and the right became a reality for many millions of American women. Since then, however, the times have not been so sweet for reproductive freedom. Facing pressure, violence, and over the top licensing requirements from the states, clinics have closed, leaving women in 87% of US counties without an abortion provider. The Hyde Amendment was passed and continues to bar poor women from receiving Medicaid funding for their abortions, with few exceptions. As Francis Kissling and Kate Michelman, two longtime leaders of the abortion rights movement (Kissling at Catholics for a Free Choice and Michalman at NARAL)
write in this week’s Nation, the US has gone from being a leader in reproductive health access to a laggard.
While Roe was not overturned, it was systematically eviscerated, and long-accepted reproductive health services such as birth control became controversial. These days the United States has one of the most punitive and regressive policies on reproductive health in the developed world. To reverse this turn to the far right, women’s health advocates must seek not only to protect abortion rights but to restore the whole range of reproductive health services, pushing for this broader agenda to be at the center of any progressive platform.
Looking at Europe, we can see how things would be different if reproductive health policy attended to women’s needs rather than the demands of a fundamentalist Christian right. Almost without exception, in Western European countries where abortions are legal, they are included in national healthcare plans. They do not require parental consent or notice for adolescents seeking abortion; contraceptives are reasonably priced, covered by health insurance and often available without prescription; teens and adults have access to emergency contraception in hospitals or over the counter at pharmacies; and abstinence-only sex education is rare.
But as Michelman and Kissling recognize, today (on Roe’s birthday) we need to be clear about the fact that fighting for Roe and fighting for reproductive justice is more than catching up with Europe with regard to healthcare coverage and contraceptive equity, and to maintaining our more liberal abortion policies during the first trimester of pregnancy (a state of affairs Michelman and Kissling fail to mention). We’ve got to do that (including getting rid of abstinence only education, repealing the Hyde Amendment, and refusing to accept state laws that are targeted to regulate abortion providers (so-called TRAP laws)), but we’ve got to do more. We have to respect women who don’t give birth and those who do. As bloggers have often noted, it seems like the anti-abortion forces stop caring about the fetus once it’s born (if they ever really cared about it as something more than a prop). A real reproductive justice agenda can’t do this. When women do give birth, they should have a host of options — all covered by insurance, public or private — including birthing centers, hospitals, at-home midwives. They should receive free or covered prenatal care, no matter what. They should be supported not scolded. And they – and their partners – should receive paid family leave regardless of the size of their employer or how many sick/vacation days they have used/accrued. Oh, and they should have access to subsidized professional daycare in which parents feel comfortable leaving their kids.
All of this said, I hope it’s clear why it’s important to vote for someone who is not just pro-choice, but who is pro reproductive justice, and pro-woman. Pro-choice is not enough if our goal is achieving equality and justice in more than name alone.
It’s important not only to vote for candidates who care about and understand reproductive justice, but also who will be willing to, as Hillary Clinton said last night (on another topic), “go to the mat” for reproductive justice. Who understand that Roe, while important, is little more than a battlecry without a reproductive justice agenda.
Frankly, I’m not sure that such a candidate exists in the presidential race right now. So perhaps the question for us in 2008 should be not why it’s important for us to vote pro-choice or pro-justice, but how we can recruit and elect leaders who understand why it’s important for them to support reproductive justice without compromise.
In which I am once again deeply embarrassed for Mittens.
As he posed for a picture with a group of young people, the typically old-fashioned Romney was relaxed enough to quote from a popular hit single from a few years back.
“Who let the dogs out?” he called out, as he stood there beaming in his shirt and tie. “Who! Who!”
Who indeed? Who told Mitt Romney that anyone other than white people had ever enjoyed this song?
Next week: Romney turns to supporters at a campaign even and asks, “Whaaaassssaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaap?”
I very much want to think that McCain will lose the nomination, and I think a Romney win is plausible. But I have to say that I’m not sure what this data is supposed to prove. McCain’s declining vote share says very little about his chances and a lot more about the banal factthat having 4 serious campaigns in a state plus the unusually well-funded vanity campaigns of Paul and Rudy! tends to depress the vote share of the frontrunners when compared to a campaign with 2 serious candidates. (This would seem to be a variant of the “Bill Clinton never won a majority” argument, as if no Perot voters would have gone to him in ’96.) The argument from raw vote totals is even worse; it is certainly bad news for the Republican Party but says absolutely nothing about McCain’s ability to win future primaries. The latter seems to be a variant of the world-historically specious “Bush got more votes than anyone in American History!!!!What a landslide!!!1ONE11!!11″ argument.
Now, if someone has some evidence that supporters of Thompson and Huckabee or Rudy’s supporter will disproportionately vote for Romney over McCain, or at least a compelling logical argument on behalf of this outcome, then we’ll have something. But I haven’t seen either yet.