Yglesias is right that McCain’s reliance on the advice of Phil Gramm shows that the straight-talking maverick just doesn’t care about economic policy. The fact that Gramm equipped the Glass-Steagall Act with concrete shoes is certainly damning enough; it would be analogous, I think, to asking for Douglas Feith’s advice in scaling the difficult crannies of foreign policy.
Don’t forget, of course, that Gramm was a footsoldier in the Enron Revolution, setting the tables for the catastrophe that really should have spurred a national conversation about bringing back the gallows for corporate felons. Wendy Gramm, while at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, carved out a regulatory exemption for Enron in 1992 before resigning to work for the company until 1998. All the while, Enron continued donating to Gramm’s political campaigns as well as to several hundred other members of Congress. In December 2000, Gramm co-sponsored a recycled deregulatory bill that was inserted into an appropriations bill as a rider; it passed, Clinton signed it, and the the rest is history.
Ordinarily, this is the sort of association that might be disastrous for a presidential campaign, but I’m given to understand that Barack Obama consorts with Angry, Crazed Negroes, so I expect there will be other things for the press to discuss while they’re eating Butterfingers on the Straight Talk Express.
Matt is of course right that Bob Casey would be an extremely poor choice to join the Obama ticket. Going with a proponent of criminalizing abortion would be bad on the merits, bad politics, and especially bad considering the need to bring supporters of the Democratic runner-up back into the fold. (I would be especially interested in hearing Scheiber explain how this slap in women’s faces would be good for party unity.) Besides that, Casey is a notably non-dynamic speaker whose name recognition wouldn’t mean much outside of Pennsylvania, and it would also mean vacating a Senate seat the Dems wouldn’t be guaranteed to hold.
Remarkably, after Giuliani’s historic flameout, I don’t recall countless media stories about how the GOP is in deep trouble if they don’t broaden their tent and consider running someone who’s pro-choice. Indeed, let me know if I missed something but as far as I can tell the number of pundits making this argument was “zero,” although people are still whining and moaning about poor Bob Casey not speaking to the Democratic convention in 1992 even though he refused to endorse Clinton 15 years later. And this double standard exists although the Democratic Party actually represents the majority position on reproductive freedom. Why, it’s almost as if these arguments are about indifference and/or hostility to women’s reproductive rights rather than being about politics…
But Walter L. Wagner and Luis Sancho contend that scientists at the European Center for Nuclear Research, or CERN, have played down the chances that the collider could produce, among other horrors, a tiny black hole, which, they say, could eat the Earth. Or it could spit out something called a “strangelet” that would convert our planet to a shrunken dense dead lump of something called “strange matter.” Their suit also says CERN has failed to provide an environmental impact statement as required under the National Environmental Policy Act.
In short: the search for a higgs bozon might swallow the earth. and – oh yeah – they forgot their EIS. Almost the best part? They filed suit in Hawaii. Because CERN is definitely going to show up to court there.
As the primary season drags on, you might be getting tired of always hearing about the same stuff. Fortunately, someone has a brand new idea: Democrats throwing reproductive freedom under the bus! Kinda!
Winters who is the author of a forthcoming book, “Left at the Altar: How the Democrats Lost the Catholics and How the Catholics Can Save the Democrats,” thinks Clinton could expand her support in the Pennsylvania primary (and in the general election) by distancing herself “from some of the more extreme pro-abortion arguments.” He elaborates:
She could say that the Democrats need to move beyond simply defending Roe and find alternatives to abortion or new ways of preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place. She could repeat her husband’s mantra that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare” and point to ways that might make it more rare.
If one wants to give this a charitable interpretation, the obvious problem is that Clinton has already done this, which should have taught us for the umpteenth time that when given the choice between preventing unwanted pregnancies (and hence reducing abortions) and regulating female sexuality, American anti-choicers have an extremely strong tendency to choose the latter. I don’t see any evidence for the existence of a free ride where Democrats can pick up lots of anti-abortion voters without changing their substantive positions at all. I also don’t know what “extreme pro-abortion” arguments Clinton and Obama subscribe to, but presumably the problem is that they believe that women other than affluent ones who live in cities should have access to safe abortions instead of believing that some classes of women should be subject to a blizzard of irrational regulations.
In a similar vein, Amy Sullivan goes into her views on the subject at greater length. In addition to the free ride problem, her discussion is centered around an alleged contradiction that isn’t hard to explain. She claims the views of many Americans are incoherent because they have moral qualms about abortion but don’t want it to be illegal. But, of course, there’s not really a contradiction here: many more Americans believe that adultery is immoral than believe that adulterers belong in jail. This is particularly true given the ineffectiveness of and gross inequities inherent in criminalizing abortions, and it remains extremely frustrating that Sullivan and others who share her views generally refuse to discuss this. “I think abortion is immoral,” full stop, isn’t going to expand the pro-choice coalition or convince people to vote for Democrats.
To echo thoughts directed at those claiming that they’ll take their balls and go home if the wrong candidate wins the primary, allow me to quote the following from John Paul Stevens’s dissent in Bethel School District v. Fraser:
“Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.”
When I was a high school student, the use of those words in a public forum shocked the Nation. Today Clark Gable’s four-letter expletive is less offensive than it was then.
Wait–it’s worse than that. I’m pretty sure that Justice Stevens is misremembering and was in fact a college student at the time. (He got his BA two years after Gone With the Wind was released.) And then note that the possibility of Antonin Scalia becoming the median vote on the Supreme Court isn’t the worst thing that could happen if John “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran” McCain were to be elected. Just sayin.’
During the last summer I was was writing my dissertation, I took a variety of short-term temping jobs to stave off financial ruin. I’d spent previous summers temping (and writing about temping), and I typically found myself with the usual assignments inside a glass office tower, where I’d play Minesweeper and nod off for months at a time. This time, though, I really needed to finish my degree, so I explained to the agency that I was only interested in leaving the apartment twice a week. As a result, the offers I received consisted almost exclusively of single-day assignments or spot work that lasted a few hours at most.
The ad hoc-kery of the system worked well for my writing schedule, but it also satisfied the side of me that wanted to do weird things for money. One morning, for example, I was asked to rush out to the Mall of America and fix defective purse clasps with needle-nose pliers for half a day. The project only took 45 minutes, but I earned four hours’ pay. I still rank that day among my life’s greatest financial accomplishments.
Another job involved making an appearance at a stockbroker’s lunch, where I was paid to pretend to work for a San Diego-based company that was marketing a fantastic new device for heart surgery. An actual representative from that company was on hand to push his overlords’ stock, but my job was to lend the impression that this company was wealthy and caring enough to send a young and talentless man in a suit to collect business cards from brokers. In preparation for the only acting gig of my life, I memorized a few street names from San Diego just in case anyone asked where in the city I lived, and then I watched a room full of white guys oversalt their steaks and listen to a half-hour rap about angioplasty. I earned $150 for this.
Anyhow, all this is a preface to the fact that lately, I’ve been doing a little bit of freelance editing and writing — mostly to fund my corrosive drug habits subsidize various home improvement projects and to pay for my dog’s new knee. Part of this involves trawling freelancing sites for small jobs that require little effort but pay reasonably well for the time commitment. Some of the posted projects are genuinely interesting. This summer, for example, I’ll be writing content for a K-12 educational website about historical figures like Charlie Chaplin, Ernest Hemingway, and Sigmund Freud.
Others projects — which the unreconstructed temp worker in me is really compelled to pursue — are simply bizarre. Here’s one:
We need someone to write 100 unique articles for a website all about toilets. We need articles about the following categories:
You will have a special login that will allow for you to post all of your articles right on the website. Each article must be unique content that might appeal to readers.
And then there’s the occasional opportunity to put my dormant Marxism to good use:
Looking for a ghost writer for my book and bring my ideas to life. Subject will cover why some people are rich and most are not. I will provide my general ideas. Writer must be able to take my ideas and expand on them.
I will be allowed 1-2 revisions. Book will be about 5.5″ x 8.5 and between 200 – 250 pages. More is better.
I suppose we might begin by pointing out that one way people become rich is by farming out their labor to others. I can’t imagine how I’d fill the other 199-249 pages, though. So I’ll have to pass.
And finally, there’s this effort to find someone to turn a broad concept and plot into a detailed, humorous script for an animated short.
The basics: Crazy chimps are trying to break out of the zoo. They never get far, but cause problems for all. A group of Orangoutangs think they’re better than the chimps. Two elephants have a love/hate relationship. And a street-wise Squirrel is the go-to man. People don’t know that the animals can talk — the animals all live double lives. A Giraffe thinks he is from the military.
At the moment we are only looking to produce a 4min trailer, a short story if you will. In the trailer we’re just looking for something along the lines of the chimps using the elephants to sneeze into a tree canon to blow the chimps over the wall. Instead the chimps go nowhere but get covered in snot.
Sounds great, but I’m afraid this one has been done:
The Wall Street Journal is reporting today that discrimination against pregnant women is on the rise. Up14% in the past year, to be exact. And yet, pregnant women have very little recourse.
Jezebel (linked above) explains pregnant women’s legal bind: “Employers can fire, lay off and refuse to hire knocked up ladies, but they have to provide ample proof that they held men to the same standards. They also have to provide maternity leave, as they would provide leave for any other medical issue, but in 48 of the 50 states, that leave doesn’t have to be paid (readers in California and Washington State, you’re the lucky ones).”
That’s pretty much right. There is a Pregnancy Discrimination Act, but it’s protections are limited. And it doesn’t require affirmative protections for pregnant women but rather restrains companies from treating pregnant women worse than men and women who are not pregnant. In fact, the Supreme has specifically rejected any requirement of affirmative protections for pregnant women.
Of course, this all goes to the point that we live in a society that doesn’t really care about having women as equal citizens, or really about children and even fetuses (except when they can be used as political pawns). Call me crazy, but I’d argue that firing a woman or treating her badly during her pregnancy is certainly not the way to assure a healthy pregnancy and birth.
Not to sound like a wine track coastal elitist or anything, but wandering the streets of San Francisco for about five minutes tends to dramatically bring home the difference between places like Lexington or Cincinnati and, you know, a city. We will shortly be dining at one of the approximately 912 restaurants within a one block radius of the hotel, all of which look good.
Now that the Florida legislature has apologized for slavery, the White Conservative Monologue on Race will certainly achieve new heights of sophistication. Meantime, this poor fellow appears to have done gone and pooped himself:
Far as I am concerned, many Blacks in the US ought to be thankful that no matter how their ancestors got here they are better off in the US than in some shiitehole in Africa, eating scarps of bread, swatting flies and living in mud huts using arrows and clubs to hunt their food.
Possibly the most preposterous notion to come from the radical Left is that blacks should be given free money expropriated by force from everyone else as a reward for having ancestors who were given a hard time — just like the ancestors of every human being on the planet. I won’t insult the reader’s intelligence by explaining the absurdity of thinking this unjust and profoundly moronic concept would improve race relations.
Mmmm, somehow I think insulting your readers’ intelligence might actually be a steeper challenge than you think.
Just to clarify the current state of The Conversation, I offer an important graphic aid. Pictured below: (a) ordinary human being enduring a typically hard time; (b) non-African-living black men from Indiana who didn’t live in mud huts.