I am amused.
Via Matt, Radley Balko and Kerry Howley discuss some data that supports my inclination to decriminalize and regulate prostitution. Because sex workers engaged in illegal activity can’t go to the police, they face the Hobson’s Choice of violent assault from their customers or violent assault from pimps. And, worse, police with the arbitrary power to arrest prostitutes at their discretion take advantage of this by raping prostitutes with disturbing frequency. And because illegal prostitution isn’t regulated, 80% of the johns don’t use condoms. All of these problems, as Balko says, seems pretty directly tied to criminalization.
On the other hand, decriminalization isn’t a panacea. Brad Plumer points out that legalization led to increased trafficking, doesn’t stop many sex workers from feeling coerced and unsafe, and brothels proved difficult to regulate. This doesn’t fully convince me because these problem seem like they could be at least partially addressed by more careful regulatory regimes whereas the problems of criminalization seem inevitable. But as an alternative, Brad suggests the Swedish model of criminalizing the buying but not the selling of sex, which would at least eliminate many of the perverse incentives of criminalization. The Swedish model also “provided ample social service funds for helping any prostitute who wanted to get out of the business to do so, as well as funds for educating the public.” This system has its own serious flaws, although it would seem better than the American status quo. The depressing lesson here seems to be that given existing gender inequities we’re choosing among least bad policy options.
Ever since I was a little kid, I have dreaded the first day of a new semester. There’s some joy to it: the new school supplies, the anticipation of actually liking my classes. But there’s also anxiety and the disappointment of a vacation’s end.
So, today is the big back to school day. Only this time, it’s my last one. Ever. After way too many of them. And you know what? It feels exactly like all the others.
The Decider doesn’t understand why the US and its allies in World War II couldn’t have bombed Auschwitz and, he assumes, saved thousands of lives.
Here, Bush is invoking a debate that goes back about 30 years and continues to inspire ferocious argument among historians. Without getting too deep into the thickets, the “pro-bombing” argument rests on claims first articulated by historian David Wyman in an article for Commentary in 1978. There, he asserted that (a) the Allies knew what was happening at Auschwitz; (b) that attacks on Auschwitz would have been technically feasible; and (c) that such attacks would have saved lives. (The worst of these arguments, raised by pop historians like Michael Beschloss, suggest that these attacks did not happen because FDR was an anti-Semite who couldn’t be bothered to care about European Jews. Someone should check Liberal Fascism to see if that particular smear lives anew.)
Skeptics acknowledge that (a) is true enough — by 1943-44, there was no reasonable question about what was happening in these camps — but point out that the bombing campaigns during the war were incredibly imprecise, and that even a massive assault on Auschwitz would have been unlikely to destroy the gas chambers; even assuming for the sake of argument that it had actually worked, the bombing of Auschwitz most certainly would not have spared most of the camp’s victims from being gunned down and dumped in trenches. Nor would it have done anything to halt the proceedings as Treblinka, Belzec, or Sobibor — unless, of course, the allies had chosen to prolong their war against the German military by sending fleets of aircraft to rubble the camps. The military historians I’ve read on this issue generally agree that Wyman’s argument and its various descendants are poorly grounded, at least as far as questions logistics and strategy go.
I can’t for a moment imagine that Bush has any inkling about the actual terms of this debate. Rather — as his idiotic pronouncements about the Yalta conference indicated three years ago — the man appears genuinely convinced that his raisins are larger than FDR’s and, moreover, that pre-emptive action always produces the best possible outcome. Had Bush been president, we’re asked to believe, the Iron Curtain would not have descended across Eastern Europe, and the name “Auschwitz” would, like “Normandy,” call to mind the moral purity and spirit of sacrifice that defined the American war effort. It’s a laughable premise, but it’s pretty much par for the course. He may be an inarticulate dunce, but he surely ranks as one of the great egomaniacs to hold the presidency. That much is obvious whenever he tries to speak about history.
I suppose we would be obligated to link to the post because of the title alone, but Spackerman does a good job in pointing out the feeble response of the NYT public editor to the hiring of someone who quite recently said that his new editors were traitors who belong in jail.
Although He Probably Shouldn’t Have Taken Her New Single "Don’t Get Rid of the Ball When You’re Surrounded By Four Defenders" At Face Value
I yield in nobody in my hatred of the Cowboys, but the “why did Tony Romo go to the beach with a woman inexplicably seen as a platonic ideal of beauty by many American men during a bye week?” controversy is so stupid it could have been invented by Maureen Dowd herself. Take the normally much more astute William Rhoden:
That’s why, given everything at stake, I was puzzled by Romo’s decision to go to Cabo San Lucas, Mexico, with Jessica Simpson during the Cowboys’ bye week.
I know, I know: on the surface this is not a big thing. Cabo isn’t all that far from Dallas. Still, the decision to make the trip sent an odd message to his teammates: I’m at least as focused, if not more focused, on celebrity than winning this playoff game. The message to the Giants was, We’ve beaten you twice already; the third meeting at our house will be a day at the beach.
Immaturity, poor decision-making and misplaced priorities.
When Romo was hatching his plans, I wonder if he stopped and asked himself: I wonder how Brett Favre, Tom Brady and Peyton Manning are spending their bye weeks? Brady, of the Patriots, spent most of his time in New York with his girlfriend, and the Packers’ Brett Favre spent time in Mississippi.
Two of the great quarterbacks in N.F.L. history kept low profiles. I don’t know where Manning was — which is instructive in itself — but I’d be willing to wager that he wasn’t hanging out on a beach in Mexico.
Or to rephrase this without changing a single fact:
While Tony Romo spent a quiet couple of days out of the glare of the Dallas media spotlight in a remote location with his girlfriend and her family, Tom Brady spent two days carousing swank Manhattan nightclubs with supermodel Gisele Bündchen, proving that he is immature and cares more about celebrity than his team. Heavens to Betsy, what misplaced priorities! Tom Brady is Teh suxxor!
But I’m sure if Romo had decided to vacation in Branson, the Giants wouldn’t have been especially motivated to get to the NFC Championship game…
With an enormous amount of writing to do but three sporting events of interest, I decided to use the predictive powers for which I am justly famous and take my laptop to a cafe during the crappy-looking Colts/Chargers game — bringing a radio to listen to the first half as long as it was close — then use the first half of Cowboys/Giants for a gym/dinner break and then work in front of the Flames/Oilers game on the teevee in the evening.
I suppose this was the inevitable result. Not that I’m sold on Norv Turner — the team last year was better in the regular season and would have won the playoff game in which they were the much better team if they could have just knocked down Brady’s 4th down pass rather than run with the pick — but to beat a great team on the road with his starting QB injured in the 4th quarter and his star running back also hurt, you can’t deny him his credit. (Also, TV watchers may disagree, but Marv and Fossel seemed to suggest that the Bolts were getting consistently screwed by the officiating.)
Via Danger Room, the Army needs rockers:
Professional Celebrity Rock Music Band, group not to exceed seven people for tour of FOB’s [forward operating bases] in Kuwait and Afghanistan for February 4-13 2008. The band should be an active rock band, with a music genre consisting of Southern Rock, Pop Rock, Post-Grunge and Hard Rock. At least one member of the band should be recognizable as a professional celebrity. Protective military equipment, such as kevlar, body armour, eye and ear protection will be provided when the group is travelling on military rotary or fixed wing aircraft.
Caitlin Flanagan, she of the career-woman hating hypocrisy, continues to get bigger stages from which to spew her candy-coated reactionary guck (she used to be one of the only female staff writers at the New Yorker). Today’s venue: the New York Times, which is really on a roll recently with its columnists.
In today’s column, Flanagan takes on the movie Juno, and the idea that a teenage girl can have sex and not end up poor, alone, and uneducated. I was not going to get into the politics of Juno, but she’s given me no choice.
I’ve got to agree with Amanda that in dismissing Juno’s agency, Flanagan equates an opinionated and strong young woman with a fairy tale. Certainly not all teenage pregnancy doesn’t turn out as well as does Juno’s (perhaps most doesn’t). But Juno is not about the difficulty of teenage pregnancy. It’s about a young woman finding her voice, and about her embracing of the non-traditional. And that that can be ok too.
Flanagan also can’t let an opportunity to bash girls’ sexuality pass her by. She seizes upon this column as a chance to say that maybe we are mistaken to push for girls’ equality if it requires us to also accept their sexuality. I think that’s totally wrong. We can – and should – be open to the fact that women young and old have sexuality, and that they should be able to exercise that sexuality free from punishment. Instead of tackling how this might be possible (say, by education girls to use birth control via comprehensive sex ed programs), Flanagan just throws up her hands and says that it’s not and that we better just protect our fragile girls. As they did in the Victorian era. Because that was such a good time for women.
Ultimately, Flanagan returns to her favorite line: biology is destiny. I can’t imagine a more retrograde way to approach female sexuality. Resort to this seems, to me, to ensure that any real discussions of equality are superficial at best and, more likely, totally full of hot air.