A little Sunday morning Clemens-related levity.
When I picked up the New York Times last weekend, I thumbed through the sections, skimming the headlines and plotting out my reading plan. That is, until I came upon the magazine and its featured article, “The First Ache,” an exploration of fetal pain. Ick, I thought. Yet another Times article “exploring” the complications in the quote-unquote abortion debate. I didn’t feel much better having read the article — it’s misleading and unbalanced.
What is The New York Times’ problem with abortion? The editorial page consistently supports sex education, birth control, and the right to legally end unwanted pregnancy. The rest of the Times, however, often seems uncomfortable with concrete applications of these principles. Not a season goes by that a news item or magazine feature doesn’t imply that women who get abortions are acting with egotism, unhealthiness, and cruelty.
There’s last week’s article by Annie Murphy Paul; last year, the usually wonderful Emily Bazelon wrote an article for the Magazine about so-called Post Abortion Syndrome. As Nathan points out on TNR, though, Bazelon’s article, while explaining the evidence that “PAS” doesn’t exist, features all these fuzzy profiles of “PAS” sufferers and treads lightly over the “syndrome’s” political uses (and, I would argue, political creation). There’s more (which Nathan is sure to document). And I’ve complained before about other things the Times has published about abortion and other issues related to feminism, gender, and sexuality.
Which all leads to the question: what gives NY Times? By your own admission, your editorial page strongly supports abortion rights. So why all the apologizing for it and the mixed signals? Nathan posits that the Times’s coverage mirrors a societal trend:
Liberals and even feminists have bought into the reasoning that abortion is basically immoral, and if women could just be educated and dosed with birth control, we wouldn’t have to terminate any pregnancies. Bill Clinton’s famous formulation [ed. note - which Hillary Clinton has adopted], that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare,” has become conventional wisdom.
It’s a shame that the paper of record, the Gray Lady herself, is not above such moralizing about an issue on which women face more than enough moralizing as it is.
Congratulations of a sort are in order for Kosovo. As I understand it, a number of Western countries will shortly recognize the independence declaration, to the chagrin of Serbia and Russia. Serbia has a variety of means through which to play the spoiler, but will almost certainly stop short of the use of force. It’s bad news for Georgia, because Russia will feel the need to retaliate in some form and may take advantage of the opportunity to recognize the independence of the two Georgian breakaway regions.
On the general merits, I’m inclined to think that this is the best solution available for Kosovo. Maintaining the union with Serbia wasn’t really in the cards, so the only real option was continued existence in a legal nether region. For Serbian nationalists this really does represent the final humiliation; after years of war to create and maintain a Greater Serbia, the state is now diminished about as far as it can conceivably go (give or take a couple more small ethnic enclaves).
Back in the old days when a new country was created in Europe, the Great Powers would search about for an appropriate monarch to fill the new vacancy. As the old ways are always better, and as I’ve not seen sufficient attention devoted to this problem in the MSM, I’d like to call here for consideration of a monarch appropriate to place on the throne of Kosovo. The last monarch to hold sway over Kosovo was Peter II of Serbia, but it seems that putting Alexander II on the throne would miss the entire point of the independence declaration. A better option would be Leka of House Zogu, who continues active efforts to claim the throne of Albania. A coronation in Pristina might prove a useful stepping stone to an Albanian restoration. Tragically, the House of Wied (which held the Albanian crown prior to the rise of Zog), appears to have become extinct. Victor Emmanuel III of Italy briefly held the crown of Albania, but sadly Victor Emmanuel IV is a poor candidate for anything other than prison.
It’s clear to me that the most compelling remaining option is Ertugrul Osman V of House Osman. While it’s unlikely that the Sultan would be willing to give up his cushy (and cheap) Manhattan apartment for a life in Pristina, I have to hope that something could be worked out, as what Kosovo clearly needs now is the strong hand of the Ottoman Sultan. Moreover, I can’t imagine that the Serbs would complain…
So Grover “Drown the Government in a Bathtub” Norquist looks forward to the possibility of depicting Barack Obama as a “shady Chicago socialist” in the general election.
An impressive and original strategy, but really — why stop there? I suggest trying to cast Obama as a “shady Chicago anarchist.” It would appeal to the authentic glue-huffers who believe the Senator is actually an agent of foreign terror, it would draw in the more moderate types who are merely nervous about the crowds of Obama supporters, and it would force the rest of American to relive the horror of the Haymarket bombing every day of the campaign.
I would like to think that this is too obvious to need pointing out, but as Hilzoy and Cole note, the idea that there’s some nefarious sexism lurking in Obama’s boilerplate statement that “I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal” is a)farcical, particularly when one views the whole context of the remarks, and b)undermines attempts to point out the extensive and genuine sexist attacks that Clinton has actually received. And since I’m sure some conservative will pick up on this and start tutting about those feminists and their p.c. or some such, I’ll also add that as far as I can tell the group of people making this argument are best described not as “feminists” (although some may be as well) but “people who have extensively demonstrated that they’re completely in the tank for the Clinton campaign.”
…although I would like to have the context of the remark, I would agree that this is much more plausibly described as offensive, and I would hope that Obama wouldn’t use the phrase again.
…UPDATE: I should also note that, as you can see in comments, several very smart bloggers who (unlike Armando) have much more extensive records of calling out sexism than carrying water for Clinton also find Obama’s comments objectionable. So the last line of the original post no longer applies, and their arguments should be seriously considered. On the other hand, many good feminists don’t find the comments objectionable, and I’m still unpersuaded.
Brad has a good post on the Freeman Dyson review of Michael Neufeld’s new biography of Werner Von Braun. Essentially, Dyson makes the argument that the V-2 was a poor allocation of scarce defense resources:
As the summer ended and our armies drove the Germans out of France, the buzz bombs stopped coming. They were replaced by a much less disturbing instrument of murder, the V-2 rockets launched from more distant sites in western Holland. The V-2 was not nerve-wracking like the buzz bomb. When a V-2 came down, we heard the explosion first and the supersonic scream of the descending rocket afterward. As soon as we heard the explosion, we knew that it had missed us. The buzz bombs and the V-2 rockets killed a few thousand people in London, but they hardly disrupted our civilian activities and had no effect at all on the war that was then raging in France and in Poland. The rockets had even less effect than the buzz bombs.
Brad uses this as a jumping off point for a discussion of inter-service rivalry and the US defense budget.
There’s a lot of interesting stuff going on here, and inter-service competition is only one (important) part of the issue. There’s no question that military organizations compete against each other for turf and resources, and I think it’s right to interpret the V-2 in the light of Wehrmacht-Luftwaffe competition. This kind of competition can reflect poorly in any number of ways, from producing bad procurement decisions to limiting cooperation in actual warfighting. In WWII, for example, conflict between the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine prevented necessary cooperation on attacks against shipping. On the other hand, the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy were bitter rivals during the interwar period, but cooperated very well during the ASW campaign. Back in the 1960s McNamara tried to get the services to compete against one another for procurement in the hopes that the flaws of weapon systems he didn’t like would be highlighted. It didn’t really work out, though; the services knew they were being played and toned it down, and the result (each service gets a stable slice of the pie) is what we’re still coping with today. As Yglesias noted, Fred Kaplan has a good discussion of some of the competition surrounding ballistic missile defense in his new book, Daydream Believers. I suspect that it might be possible to create some kind of scheme by which forcing the services to compete with one another improved procurement; the services could conceivably become each other’s best critics. However, I’m not sure that the logic follows for questions such as doctrine or general organizational effectiveness, where turf battles can be very destructive. Military organizations do not, after all, exist in an environment of perfect competition, and as such competition doesn’t necessarily make them more efficient.
However, it’s worth mentioning (as Dyson notes) that the SS took over the V-2 from the Wehrmacht, so it’s clearly not just a inter-service rivalry question. Civilians somewhere convinced themselves that it would be a good idea to pour money into this particular program at the expense of fighter aircraft and other goodies. There are a couple of reasons why this might have seemed sensible at the time. The first is that some innovations aren’t so useful in and of themselves, but can be quite useful as stepping stones to other innovations. One example on the German side in WWII would be the submarine campaign. After the middle of 1943, the U-boat campaign turned very badly against the Kriegsmarine, with the Royal Navy, Royal Canadian Navy, and USN exacting a devastating toll on the Germans. Germany continued to devote considerable resources to the campaign, even though it wasn’t paying off at the time. This devotion resulted in the development of the snorkel (allowing German subs to spend more time underwater), and eventually in the development of the Type XXI submarine, which could have devastated Allied supply lines if the war had continued a year or two longer. It’s possible (the article doesn’t really say) that the V-2 was considered such a halfway step, and that the Germans envisioned a longer ranged missile that could hit the US and targets deep within the Soviet Union as the true war-winning weapon.
If this is true, the Germans were almost certainly mistaken. The amount of ordnance that could be delivered even by a successor to the V-2 is certainly less than was delivered onto Germany by strategic bombers, and the strategic bombing campaign neither broke German morale nor crushed German industry (although it did some damage to the latter, and might have done more had better metrics been employed). A few, or a few dozen, or even a few hundred missiles hitting US industrial centers would not have substantially slowed the US war machine; same with the Soviet Union. For complicated reasons associated with the German collapse in 1918 and the Bolshevik Revolution, military planners in the 1920s and 1930s assumed that societies were much more fragile than they actually were, and thus that bombing might end wars in short order. Didn’t work out. Things haven’t changed that much, as not a few modern military planners seem to assume that a smattering JDAMs and cruise missiles will serve to bring recalcitrant rogue regimes to their knees. Especially since the Germans were already suffering under devastating Allied bombardment yet not surrendering, it hardly seems possible that they could have believed that the V-2 or its potential successors could win the war in an economical fashion.
However, the strategic bombing angle presents at least one other logical reason for pursuing the V-2; the Germans may not have believed that the V-2 itself could win the war, but might have concluded that the Allies would be forced to respond in some fashion and that the cost of that response would exceed the cost of the V-2. Probably the single greatest contribution that the strategic bombing campaign made to the end of the war was to drag German fighter aircraft out of tactical roles on the Western and Eastern Fronts. The presence of V-1 and V-2 launch sites changed Allied behavior on the Western Front, and it’s possible that the use of even more powerful delivery vehicles could have forced the Allies to engage in a costly effort to prevent the attacks. This is a pretty thin reed to stake an enormously expensive program on, but it’s not an impossibility.
And this, I suppose, is why I should read the book about Von Braun, because I don’t really know the details of any of this process, and it’s pretty interesting from a theoretical point of view.
Megan McArdle cites a story finding that a fund permitting Virginians to send more money to the government voluntarily raises little revenue. What lesson does she derive from this?
This is what economists call “revealed preference”. What most of us are really in favor of is higher taxes on other people. If we wanted higher taxes on ourselves, we’d give the money to charity.
If I may be permitted to state the obvious, it reveals no such thing (unless it’s supposed to reveal the trivial point that nobody would want to pay taxes if necessary public services could be funded with money grown by magic ponies.) For some reason, a lot of conservatives think “if you think taxes should be higher, why don’t you send more money to the government?” is some incredibly clever rejoinder, but it’s deeply silly. Rather, most people intuitively understand the concept of free riding: unless you’re Bill Gates, no money you send to the government is going to pay for the provision of an important public good, and moreover it would also be very unfair for you to pay for a public good while your similarly situated neighbor with the ability to pay takes advantage of the public good without contributing. Hence, those mean Upper West Side Liberals (TM) who drove Adam Bellow to edit unreadable books for a living don’t send unsolicited money to the government but are perfectly willing to support politicians who raise their taxes and oppose politicians who cut them. This behavior is, of course, perfectly rational.
John Dickerson, while ruminating on the possible limits of Barack Obama’s “hipness,” asks a profoundly stupid question:
More generally, shouldn’t Democrats who have complained that George Bush was elected on the strength of a popularity contest be nervous that this blossoming Obamadulation is getting out of hand?
Okay then. I have a limited amount of time before I go blind and slip into a coma, so I’ll make this brief. Could Dickerson possibly be speaking of George “Where Wings Take Dream” Bush? Last I recall, his — ahem — “election” to office in 2000 was a “popularity contest” in the following senses:
- He received 50.5 million out of 104 million votes cast. That is to say, he lost the “popularity contest” outright. (Three million of those votes, of course, went to Ralph Nader.)
- Fuck off, Ralph Nader.
- Bush was, on the other hand, quite popular with the Dowdified corporate press corps who behaved egregiously thoguhout the campaign, blathering endlessly about his “folksy demeanor” while overlooking the fact that when he spoke about actual policy matters, his breath reeked of model airplane glue. Meantime, Gore was portrayed a desperate, arrogant wonk who — though not yet fat — was clearly unworthy of the office he sought.
- Bush was also hip in the eyes of the rent-a-mob who disrupted the “undervote” recount in Dade County and helped their preferred candidate win a state whose “popularity contest” he had, in all likelihood, actually lost.
- And finally, he was popular with five Supreme Court justices who offered the final stroke of legitimacy to the pretense that Bush was indeed “the people’s choice.”
Beyond those niggling details, it’s totally plausible that Dickerson might confuse Obama ’08 with Bush ’00. The resemblance is just uncanny.
Like a moth to the flame, I followed Scott’s Paglia link, finding this:
A quite different film that I’ve recently enjoyed re-seeing and studying is “Revenge of the Sith” (2005) from George Lucas’ “Star Wars” saga. The climactic light-saber duel between Anakin Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi on the volcano planet of Mustafar (with footage of actual explosions and lava flows at Mount Etna in Sicily) is nearly mystically sublime in the High Romantic sense. The convulsive, manly passion between the two tortured Jedi is hyper-sustained by John Williams’ powerful music. Then there’s Anakin’s shocking mutilation and Wagnerian immolation, leading to the grisly Frankenstein surgery that turns him into Darth Vader and that is cross-cut with a parallel hospital sequence, as Anakin’s wife, Padme, dies while giving birth to the twins Luke and Leia.
I don’t know what to say. I don’t know what to say. I don’t know what to say. I’m at a loss for words. I don’t know what to say. To paraphrase Hugh St. John Alastair Parkfield, I’ve attempted to enjoy this passage on a personal level, on an ironic level, as a novelty, as camp, as kitsch, as cautionary example… nothing works. And just to seal the deal, the film she was discussing just previous to Revenge of the Sith was The Sorrow and the Pity.
When Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, and Bill Richardson were still in the race, were they each listed as having one pledged superdelegate? I’ve got to assume that each was planning to vote for himself…
From Vanessa at Feministing:
In the midst of a trade discussion in 1973 with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Chinese leader Mao Zedong offered sending Chinese women to the United States as as a trade, saying:
“We don’t have much. What we have in excess is women. So if you want them we can give a few of those to you, some tens of thousands. . . We have too many women. … They give birth to children and our children are too many.”
And the kicker: “It is such a novel proposition,” Kissinger replied. “We will have to study it.”
Shades of Dr. Strangelove… Seriously, though, I’m not sure how Kissinger could have responded any differently; vicious misogyny was only one of the many horrible things that Kissinger chose to ignore about Mao Zedong. Any thoughts on a more appropriate reply that would have preserved the opportunity for Sino-American reapproachment?