Shorter Verbatim Camille Paglia: “Pro-life women will save feminism by expanding it, particularly into the more traditional Third World.” Ah, yes, center-right “contrarianism” defined: you expand a progressive coalition by simply defining “not-x” as “x.” The value of this type of expansion is not explained.
Or try this one: “For example, I had thought for many months that the flap over Obama’s birth certificate was a tempest in a teapot. But simple questions about the certificate were never resolved to my satisfaction.”
Or…well, look, pretty much every sentence she’s ever written for Salon could be a “verbatim.” Why they think that this will attract readers — let alone subscribers — in 2008 remains inexplicable.
With Russian tanks only 30 miles from Tbilisi on August 12, Mr Sarkozy told Mr Putin that the world would not accept the overthrow of Georgia’s Government. According to Mr Levitte, the Russian seemed unconcerned by international reaction. “I am going to hang Saakashvili by the balls,” Mr Putin declared.
Mr Sarkozy thought he had misheard. “Hang him?” — he asked. “Why not?” Mr Putin replied. “The Americans hanged Saddam Hussein.”
Mr Sarkozy, using the familiar tu, tried to reason with him: “Yes but do you want to end up like [President] Bush?” Mr Putin was briefly lost for words, then said: “Ah — you have scored a point there.”
It’s hard to believe that those data are accurate. Did four percent of last week’s voters really vote for someone other than Bush or Kerry in 2004? And what would explain that nine-point gap between Bush and Kerry voters? In theory, Democrats were enthusiastic about last week’s election, Republicans somewhat less so. Can it really be that 46 percent of last week’s voters voted for Bush in 2004—versus only 37 percent who voted for Kerry?
Bob isn’t considering one crucial possibility here: misreporting. Political scientists have found a “retrospective bandwagon” effect in which some people will remember having voted for the winner even if they didn’t. One example, as this paper reminds us, is that after his razor-thin victory about 65% of respondents claimed to have voted for JFK. Admittedly, Bush’s extreme unpopularity should lessen these effects, but then this a pretty small retrospective bounce.
It is, of course, true that exit poll data should be treated carefully. But there’s nothing about the 2004 election question that would suggest that CNN’s sampling was bad; it’s about the result you would expect.
The point about churches engaging in political funding and activism and then hiding behind the bushes is a particularly important one. It’s also good that Savage has apologized for his post-election scapegoating of African-Americans.
By the way, does the backlash against Prop 8 prove that initiatives are a bad political strategy? Or does this logic only apply to backlashes against progressive strategies?
Apparently, in response to their initiative getting roughly 0.0% of the vote in Colorado, advocates for giving zygotes constitutional rights are planning to broaden their campaign. I would advise anti-choicers in the strongest possible terms to put their resources behind this movement. But who will protect the Spermatazoan-Americans?
The latest tally reflects the counting of absentee ballots — about 40,000 of them — and will soon be incorporating about 35,000 more from around the state. Most of the remaining votes appear to be from outlying areas of the state where Begich should do very well. Final results, though, won’t be available for a few days, and probably not before the middle of next week. Don’t ask me why. People count slowly up here.
But depending on the final tally, America just might owe the Alaskan Independence Party — whose candidate, Bob Bird, earned more than 10,000 votes — a modest debt of gratitude. Last time, the AIP received about 3% of the vote; this time, Bird is clearing more than 4%, which would be one of many factors — the greatest of which would be Stevens himself — enabling a Democratic win.
A Begich win would bring the Senate numbers up to 58.
…and most importantly, it would save the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body from the horror-show of Sen. Sarah Palin:
She also said she feels as though she has a “contract with Alaskans” to continue to serve as governor, but wouldn’t completely rule out a run for the U.S. Senate if the opportunity presented itself.
It depends on Alaska voters, Palin said, and “if they call an audible on me, and if they say they want me in another position, I’m going to do it. … My life is in God’s hands. If he’s got doors open for me, that I believe are in our state’s best interest, the nation’s best interest, I’m going to go through those doors.”
The Palin nightmare also happened because a tiny faction of political professionals has far too much sway in the GOP and conservative circles. This was Bill Kristol’s achievement.
It was a final product of the now-exhausted strategy of fomenting fundamentalist resentment to elect politicians dedicated to the defense of Israel and the extension of American military hegemony in every corner of the globe. Palin was the reductio ad absurdum of this mindset: a mannequin candidate, easily controlled ideologically, deployed to fool and corral the resentful and the frightened, removed from serious scrutiny and sold on propaganda networks like a food product.
Some of the comments made to Rob’s post on the devastating effects the U.S. drug war has on Mexico and other nations take the view that (simplifying somewhat) yes, “drugs” produce a net negative effect in society, and would continue to be an overall negative phenomenon if we had less insane drug policies, but that draconian criminalization does more harm than good.
Some of this is in reaction to Scott the Very Odd Liberal’s view that we ought to prohibit alcohol and cigarettes (and prescription drugs!) — a position that one would think is so self-evidently nutty that there’s no need to make a bunch of “yes, but” concessions.
The biggest problem with prohibition isn’t that it doesn’t “work” (although of course it doesn’t). The problem is that if it did work, even without employing massive authoritarian measures which are clearly bad in themselves, it would still be a bad thing.
That’s because the basic principle behind the attempt to eradicate the use of large categories of mind-altering substances is wrong. That principle is that drugs do more harm than good.
Let’s take the case of alcohol. Now there is no question that alcohol abuse does a significant amount of social damage. It is, almost every non-drug warrior agrees, a more dangerous and damaging drug than marijuana. I’ve seen people close to me do very serious harm to themselves and those who love them through the long-term abuse of alcohol. Does that make alcohol “bad?” Would the world be a better place if someone could wave a magic wand and there were no alcoholic beverages, in other words, if we could have a “costless” (in the direct sense) prohibition?
This strikes me as so obviously untrue that it isn’t worth arguing over. For the vast majority of people who use alcohol, it’s a life-enhancing experience — often significantly so.
Now I’m going to propose something more radical: what’s true for alcohol is true for most if not all mind-altering substances. Most people who use most mind-altering substances don’t become addicts, don’t do serious damage to themselves, and get benefits, often great benefits from their use. This is obvious if you consider the tens of millions of Americans who have used illicit drugs — yes, even the scariest, “hardest,” “worst” such drugs — and then compare that number to the number of people who develop serious substance abuse problems.
And those of our fellow citizens who do develop such problems are disproportionately poor, discriminated against, or otherwise in socially fragile situations — situations that themselves have more to do with why drugs end up having bad effects in such peoples’ lives than anything inherently “bad” about the substances themselves.
Do we really want a world without morphine and its derivatives? Think about that for a second. And if you’ve never been in excruciating need of a powerful pharmacological palliative, you might want to think about it some more.
Do we really want a world without hallucinogenic drugs? Read Aldous Huxley’s The Doors of Perception. Read about Native American peyote rituals. And so forth.
Drug abuse is obviously a serious problem. That’s because the abuse of any powerful, potentially life-transforming substance or practice is by definition a serious problem. Science is abused, literature is abused, sex is abused, food is abused — basically everything that makes life worth living is for that very reason going to be abused.
The answer isn’t to try to get rid of those things. Prohibition strategies would do even more damage if they actually worked.