My worth-very-little guess is that the most likely outcome is that (with Clinton winning OH and RI, and Obama carrying VT) Obama wins the delegates in Texas and Clinton squeaks out a popular vote victory there. Should that come to pass, I think most of what Atrios says here is relevant:
I think candidates can stay in the race as long as they want, though I do think they all have an increasing obligation to keep criticisms responsible for the sake of the general, but I’m not sure I understand this particular line in the sand. If, say, Clinton wins Ohio, wins Texas by 1 point, but loses Texas in the delegates, is this really different from the same situation except with her losing Texas by one point? It doesn’t really seem to make any difference. I’m not trying to encourage her to drop out, I’m just not sure why that particular hurdle (if true) is meaningful.
An Obama win in Texas effectively ends the race. But I wouldn’t (so long as the campaign is minimally responsible) think to tell Clinton to drop out; it’s her decision when she wants to end the campaign, and I don’t think keeping some attention on the Democratic candidates is a bad thing. It’s also worth noting that if Clinton narrowly wins a narrow vote in Texas while losing the delegates it doesn’t mean anything. Not only because the nomination is decided by delegates not total votes, but because the strategic context affects the vote outcome. Acquiring delegates, after all, is the goal being pursued by the candidates, and Obama may have campaigned differently in a way that would have maximized his vote rather than delegate count. You can’t assume that a small vote advantage would have held up in a different set of rules, and under the rules we have whoever wins the delegates wins the state, period.
Remember yesterday when the Washington Post made room for Charlotte Allen’s screed?
Well, apparently the whole thing was just one tongue-in-cheek big ol’ joke. Just like Joel Stein.
Funny, I’m still not laughing. Oh wait, that must be because I am a humorless strident feminist.
Omar Little vs. Anton Chigurh?
News flash: Great writers often partake of the sauce:
Prudent writers learn to take more out of drink than it takes out of them. Kingsley Amis, in a 1975 interview, prescribed a glass of Scotch as an “artistic icebreaker.” John Mortimer told the New York Times that an early morning flute of Champagne “sets my brain racing.” A roommate of Tennessee Williams reported that the playwright rose early and set his typewriter clacking, after fortifying himself with a martini, a bottle of red wine and a somewhat incongruous pot of coffee.
. . . The writer’s life is solitary, but not the drinking writer’s. In his 1975 memoir, “Here at the New Yorker,” Brendan Gill portrays the magazine (where he worked for 40 years) as a society of first-class bingers. One colleague believed that vomiting was, like shaving and showering, a natural part of any morning routine. Edmund Wilson drank at lunch until he couldn’t stand; A.J. Liebling once fled a burning restaurant but not without securing his bottle of brandy; Wolcott Gibbs lugged buckets of premixed martinis to the beach and stored them in the sand.
Not surprisingly, the article neglects to discuss the literary merits of drunk-blogging, of which the greatest example in human history can be found here (Link fixed. Apologies to Roy…)
Among my numerous failings in life, I’d probably count my inability to drink and work at the same time. Even when sober, I take far too long to actually finish a sentence — these two alone have taken me about ten minutes — and booze usually just extends the process. Once in grad school, a well-timed happy hour allowed me to plow through an episode of writer’s block, but that was an exception to the rule. Another time, a colleague tried to persuade me over Chinese food that crystal meth would actually do wonders for my dissertation; it seemed to be working for him, so I asked what his work schedule looked like. He explained that he could write for three or four days in a row before crashing for “five days, maybe a week.” To nearly everyone’s surprise, that guy eventually finished.
Great. I wonder how many children will get seriously ill because John McCain encouraged their parents not to vaccinate them based on crank pseudo-science?
Armando, like several commenters, isolates this passage in the Jeffrey Rosen op-ed I blogged about yesterday and uses it to reject the entire analysis:
Mr. Obama . . . is not a knee-jerk believer in the old-fashioned liberal view that courts should unilaterally impose civil liberties protections on unwilling majorities. His formative experiences have involved arguing for civil liberties in the legislatures rather than courts, and winning over skeptics on both sides of the political spectrum, as he won over the police and prosecutors in Chicago.
The first sentence is, indeed, normatively problematic, and I don’t think I can be criticized for being unwilling to criticize Rosen’s criticisms of liberal “judicial activism.” Fortunately, it’s just projection; neither Rosen nor Armando provides any evidence that Obama opposes courts strongly protecting civil liberties, or that he would appoint less liberal justices than Clinton. The second point is more important, and a strong point in Obama’s favor. Rather than hoping (usually in vain) that the courts will correct bad legislation, Obama actually tried to make bad legislation better in civil liberties terms. This is rather crucial, because Rosen most certainly has a point empirically: as history quite conclusively demonstrates without allies in other parts of the government the courts are, in fact, extremely unreliable protectors of civil liberties. The judiciary has done very little to rein in Bush’s assertions of arbitrary executive power, and this is predictable; without a better civil libertarian in the White House this trend will continue. It’s not a coincidence that the most prominent expansion of civil liberties in the Supreme Court’s history took place when Ramsey Clark could be appointed Attorney General of the United States, and that subsequent Courts appointed by more conservative presidents have gutted most Warren Court landmarks. Unlike Rosen, I don’t regard this as a largely salutary development, but Rosen is certainly right that this is what happens when the political branches aren’t committed to civil liberties.
Indeed, as Mark Graber recently argued where Rosen is more vulnerable in exaggerating the extent to which the Court’s greatest civil libertarian opinions have been “unilaterally imposed” against majorities. The most famous opinions of the last 50+ years, Brown and Roe, were always supported by national majorities, and even when the Warren Court’s school prayer and criminal procedure decisions were counter to majority opinion they had significant support in the executive branch. This is why getting a President with a decent commitment to civil liberties is critical.
Very early records (400 AD) indicate the existence of an organized Hindu monarachy in eastern Borneo. In the 16th century the ruler of a kingdom that would become Kutai Karta Negara converted to Islam, and began to expand into the Borneo interior. In the seventeenth century the first Dutch explorers visited the kingdom, to be followed by more Dutch in the eighteenth, as well as British. As in other parts of what would become Indonesia, Islam did not so much replace previous institutions as become assimilated by them. Over the centuries following their arrival, Dutch influence and institutions spread over the archipelago, usually acting through local proxies. The Sultans of Kutai Karta Negara, consequently, were able to hold their positions and even increase the power of their kingdom.
Kutai Kartanegara was blessed (or cursed) by the discovery of oil in the late nineteenth century. The Dutch exploited these deposits, resulting in massive wealth for the Kutai dynasty. The dynasty could use the money; Sri Paduka Sultan Aji Muhammad Sulaiman al-Adil Khalifat ul-Mumenin bin Muhammad Saleh ud-din (reigned 1845-1899) had four primary wives, 38 secondary wives, and eighty-four children. The next two Sultans both cut back, with only 17 children apiece. By this time the Dutch had substantial political control in Kutai Kartanegara, having brought about the abolition of slavery and the creation of a civil service.
The same things that made Kutai Kartanegara attractive to the Dutch made it attractive to the Japanese, and in early 1942 the Imperial Japanese Army invaded Borneo. Allied resistance quickly crumbled, although guerrilla fighting continued until 1945. Kutai Kartanegara fared better than other parts of Borneo, and seems to have been spared the worst of the war that ended Dutch control of Indonesia in 1949. H.H. Sri Paduka Sultan Aji Muhammad Parikesit al-Adil Khalifat ul-Muminin, who had come to power in 1910, was allowed to continue to reign as an independent monarch within the Indonesian confederation. In 1960 Sukarno engineered the transformation of Indonesia into a unitary republic, resulting in the deposition of many of the princes, including the Sultan of Kutai Kartanegara.
The royal family remained popular in spite of the deposition and later repression. Much of the family’s property, including the palace, was confiscated by the Indonesian government. Arrests and prosecutions on fabricated charges followed. Sultan Aji died in 1992, and was succeeded shortly thereafter by Aji Muhammad Saleh ud-din, who continued a restoration campaign. The fall of Suharto in 1998 weakened the position of the Indonesian state and reflected a change of heart on the part of the central government. In 1999 it was determined that the monarchy would be restored, and in 2001 Aji Muhammed Saleh ud-din was crowned Sultan, the first such in forty-one years.
Trivia: The British essentially exterminated what dynasty after it launched three wars against them in sixty years?
Chris Bowers, in the context of discussing whether or not Obama is a progressive:
Campaigning is often a sign of how someone will govern. In 2000, the Bush campaign ended up “winning,” basically by preventing many people from voting in Florida, and then stopping the recount there altogether. He won through a power grab, foreshadowing the many power grabs to come in his administration. In 2004, Bush won through a base strategy, and then preceded to govern directly to the base without any concern for broader public sentiment. In the 2008 campaign, Obama is winning by appealing to a huge wave of progressive activists, but also by appealing to beltway, center-right conventional wisdom.
Bush may have won by preventing votes in Florida being counted, but he got into position to win by running a campaign that stressed unity, bipartisanship, cooperation with Democrats, and even (believe it or not) hints that he would include Democrats in his cabinet. He then governed from the far right; even farther right than the national GOP of the 1990s. As such, his governing ran directly counter to the way that he campaigned. So I’d have to say that Bowers is actually wrong on this point; Bush is an outstanding example of candidate whose centrist direction (at least in 2000; I think Bowers is right about 2004) had no noticeable impact on governing strategy. And so to then draw the conclusion (as Bowers does) that centrist moves in the Obama campaign (or the Clinton campaign, for that matter) herald a centrist orientation is quite wrong, at least based on the evidence of the first Bush term.
What’s notable about 2000 wasn’t that Bush ran right in the general, but rather that he was able to run a centrist campaign while having such a clearly right wing record as governor of Texas. A better argument challenging the “Obama as progressive” stance would be to suggest that Obama’s relatively short record can be interpreted as stressing such things as unity, bipartisanship, etc., and that as such we can’t be certain that he’ll govern as a genuine progressive/liberal. But as for the campaign, it really doesn’t tell us much, other than that Obama believes he’ll need independent and Republican votes to win in November, and that he believes he essentially has the Democratic nomination sewn up. On the first I’m sure that he’s right, and on the second we’ll know more on Tuesday.
Skywalkers in Korea Cross Han Solo
They came from all over the world, poles in hand, and feet ready to inch more than half a mile across a high wire strung over the Han River in a spine-tingling battle of balance, speed and high anxiety.
As part of its annual city festival, the South Korean capital staged Thursday what was billed as the world’s first high-wire championship, drawing 18 contestants from nine countries for three days of supreme feats of concentration.
Somebody’s been waiting a long time for the chance to write that headline.
As Matt and spackerman note, this collection of bizarre anecdotes and phrenology from Charlotte Allen has to be the dumbest thing published in an American newspaper in many moons. So I guess I can see why she would want to blame it on her gender as a whole, but alas that won’t fly. The heart of the article consists of selective assertions (call me crazy, but it strikes me that the Oprah is conducted at a higher intellectual level than, say, the WWE, Elizabeth Gilbert has to be better written than Mitch
Abloom Albom the guy who writes the treacle about meeting your high school volleyball coach in heaven, etc.), assumptions that intelligence consists largely of sharing Allen’s trivial aesthetic preferences and bourgeois romantic sensibilities, and so on.
Trying to make this about the Clinton campaign takes the silliness to a whole other level. Her assertion that “[a]s far as I’m concerned, she has proved that she can’t debate” runs into the obvious problem that debating is the one area where she’s clearly a better candidate than Obama, and even if she wasn’t her unquestionably greater extemporaneous command of policy details creates significant problems for the thesis that any alleged deficiencies in debating result from less intelligence. Then there’s this:
Then there’s Clinton’s nearly all-female staff, chosen for loyalty rather than, say, brains or political savvy. Clinton finally fired her daytime-soap-watching, self-styled “Latina queena” campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle, known for burning through campaign money and for her open contempt for the “white boys” in the Clinton camp. But stupidly, she did it just in time to alienate the Hispanic voters she now desperately needs to win in Texas or Ohio to have any shot at the Democratic nomination.
Yes, if only Hillary Clinton had paid millions of dollars for the sage advice of a good smart male union-buster, all of her problems would be over! Only a hysterical woman could believe otherwise!
In today’s Times (in the Styles section, of course), Pamela Paul discusses Doulas. She is sure to document the problems that can arise when a doula is not a good fit for the woman or the situation in which the woman chooses to labor and deliver (hospital, home, birthing center — though the article acts as if hospital birth is the one and only option). But somehow, whoops!, Paul just darn forgot to include a single woman who was happy with her doula and who gave birth in any sort of alternate setting. And – whoops! – she “accidentally” only provides anecdotes of the stereotypically rigid, unyielding, irrational lactation consultants and doulas that any Joel Stein column on the topic would present. It’s the kind out out-dated one-sided garbage that the Times — yes, even the Styles section — should know and do better than to publish.
Team building, Provo style:
A supervisor at a motivational coaching business in Provo is accused of waterboarding an employee in front of his sales team to demonstrate that they should work as hard on sales as the employee had worked to breathe.
In a lawsuit filed last month, former Prosper Inc. salesman Chad Hudgens alleges his managers also allowed the supervisor to draw mustaches on employees’ faces, take away their chairs and beat on their desks with a wooden paddle “because it resulted in increased revenues for the company.”
. . . . Christopherson led the sales team to the top of a hill near the office and told Hudgens to lie down with his head downhill, the suit claims. Christopherson then told the rest of the team to hold Hudgens by the arms and legs.
Christopherson poured water from a gallon jug over Hudgens’ mouth and nostrils – like the interrogation strategy known as waterboarding – and told the team members to hold Hudgens down as he struggled, the suit alleges.
“At the conclusion of his abusive demonstration, Christopherson told the team that he wanted them to work as hard on making sales as Chad had worked to breathe while he was being waterboarded,” the suit alleges.
The company disputes the allegations, of course; the president insists the sales manager was merely dramatizing an important lesson from the life of Socrates.
Curiously, this Socratic “lesson” appears in such recent, inspirational page-turners as 100 Ways to Build Self-Esteem and Teach Values, How to Make Your Dream Come Alive, and Chicken Soup for the Teenage Soul.
What I can’t seem to find, however, is any source that suggests this story actually originates from the life of Socrates. I’m inclined to suspect that the anecdote is bullshit, but maybe that’s because I have no truck with anything that qualifies as “motivational” or “self-help” literature. Anyone know for sure?