LET'S GET STUPID

President Obama is now asking Congress for approval before taking military action in Syria. I like Kalli Joy Gray's response to Josh Greenman's tweet:



She's right -- it won't.

I hope somebody does a word cloud of the debate, especially in the House, and I hope it's broken down by party. I'm betting that, among House members, and among Republicans in both houses, "Benghazi" will be uttered more frequently than "Assad." Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if "Obamacare" is uttered more frequently than "Assad." (Ted Cruz has already told us that Obamacare and Syria are "tied together by an arrogance of this administration." In fact, "arrogance" will probably be a big, bold word in that word cloud.)

A few folks are going to make serious points. A lot more are just going to segue from Syria into every grievance against Obama they've saved up for four-plus years.

No, it is not going to be an ennobling debate for the nation. It should be, but it won't. It may sound highfalutin -- Republicans will, after all, use the word "Constitution" a lot. But they don't actually give a crap about the Constitution, and it will show. They just think it's a good stick to beat Obama with. They won't reveal any particular insight into the Constitution. They'll just yammer about it a lot.

Do I think Obama will win the vote? In the Senate, probably, with a few liberal Democrats and many but not all Republicans voting against him. (Lindsay and Johnny Mac will have his back, in Lindsay's case to the detriment of his reelection chances. Mitch will vote no.)

In the House, I'm guessing Obama will lose, or win a squeaker -- the Republicans want to hurt Obama, and they'll all be facing reelection next year. Boehner will probably vote yes, but he won't carry very many of his fellow Republicans with him. I think a few white progressive Democrats will vote against Obama, but I'm guessing the Black Caucus will close ranks and have his back (I don't see any of the Caucus's members among the Democratic signers of Congressman Scott Rigell's letter demanding a congressional vote).

If Obama loses in the House and bombs Syria anyway, I wonder if that will set off the impeachment. Hey, something's got to, right? Imagine Obama being impeached on foreign policy grounds after Nixon, Reagan, and Bush weren't. That would be crazy -- and yeah, I could imagine it.
SURELY YOU PEOPLE CAN'T BE THIS NAIVE

If you believe that the scenario laid out in this story from The Hill is plausible, you're living in a dream world:
U.S. military action in Syria could give the White House an advantage in the looming fiscal showdown with congressional Republicans, according to defense and budget experts.

They said the Syria crisis could boost calls by President Obama and defense hawks to reverse the automatic spending cuts to the Pentagon known as sequestration.

Steve Bell, a budget expert at the Bipartisan Policy Center, said if the U.S. moves forward with military action, it will underline the arguments of those who say keeping the sequester in place impairs U.S. military readiness.

"I think it has the possibility of advancing fiscal talks, I really do," he said.

He argued that if strikes against Syria are launched, it will be "very, very difficult to insist" on the defense sequester.

"Under those circumstances, I can see a [2014 continuing resolution] that would contain full funding for defense," he said.
And here's how the fantasy scenario would play out:
The White House has been banking on defense hawks within the GOP breaking ranks with Tea Party conservatives and embracing a debt deal that includes some higher taxes and reverses cuts to domestic programs.

Their hope is that the cuts to the Pentagon will grow so painful, some defense-minded lawmakers will accept more tax revenue as part of a deal to end the defense cuts.
But please note that the president's plan isn't "full funding for defense" -- in fact, in includes cuts evenly split between defense and domestic programs, plus tax increases and new infrastructure spending.

Now, how do I say this in a way that will get through to people who still think we have a functioning government? The Republican Party does not have any intention of making any deals. Yes, a deal may have to be cut if a government shutdown or a default drives the GOP's poll numbers down (though it should be noted that a shutdown or default will push the GOP's approval up among the crazy-base voters, which helps both teabag members of Congress and non-teabaggers who'll be facing primaries in 2014). But if Obama holds even somewhat firm -- and he hasn't given nearly as much ground as he could have in past budget showdowns -- he won't capitulate to the GOP plan, which is full funding for the Pentagon and even more domestic cuts.

But the truly insane part of the scenario in the Hill story is the notion that a Syria attack will bring Republicans around. This overlooks the fact that the GOP base hates this attack plan -- the base thinks the Obama administration's entire approach to Syria is wrongheaded. This isn't the result of Paulite isolationism making a comeback in the GOP -- it has much more to do with the belief that (a) everything Obama does is wrong and (b) Obama is actually aiding Al Qaeda if he attacks Assad, or at the very least is attacking one side in a fight in which the U.S. should oppose both sides.

Brilliantly geostrategic thinkers on the right such as Ralph Peters and Sarah Palin have given the base some talking points: Peters:
"While I'm concerned about the humanitarian situation, I look at this and in the cold light of realpolitik, I have to ask myself at this point: what is so bad about Assad's thugs and jihadi thugs killing each other?"
Palin:
"I say until we know what we're doing, until we have a commander in chief who knows what he's doing, well, let these radical Islamic countries who aren't even respecting basic human rights, where both sides are slaughtering each other as they scream over an arbitrary red line, 'Allah Akbar,' I say until we have someone who knows what they're doing, I say let Allah sort it out."
(In other words: not only is the slaughter of brown people by other brown people not our problem to solve, it's not even a tragedy.)

Republicans voters respond more to people like Palin and Peters than they do to their own elected representatives. Base voters are not going to see bombs dropping on Syria, feel compelled by patriotism to rally 'round the flag and the military and the president, and decide from there that it's a dangerous world and more military spending is needed and it's vitally necessary to reach a compromise with the president they despise whose decision to drop bombs they abhor. If anything, it's more likely that there'd be calls to defund any military operation launched by this administration without congressional approval.

So, no, don't believe this defense contractor's pipe dream.

Brooks explains it all

David Brooks writes:
Apparently, as it turns out, there is a bigger threat to world peace than the use of poison gas in Syria; even bigger than the Islamic atomic bomb that will be ready in three weeks from whenever Ayatollah Khamenei gives the word, which could be any second. It's the fact of Islam being divided into different sects, with different beliefs, and adherents that really don't like each other very much, killing each other.  This could get big! [jump]
Image from bigfreefun.
The problem is that the conflict in Syria has become Sectarian Central, a magnet for Sunni and Shiite power players, Holy Warriors, and theology professors from all over the region. Though the Syrians themselves planned only a modest little political war, these outsiders have leapt into the country like an elephant into your swimming pool, and now the violence is splashing everywhere, to Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Saudi, Jordan—even Kuwait and Pakistan! Many express a fear that Iraq is sliding back to the horrifying civil war that was destroying that country a few years ago for reasons I have never quite understood.
Now, of course, the violence in Iraq is easy to understand. It's because there are no US troops there. Obviously President Obama has no strategy. Nevertheless, he does have three strategies, so I'll just see if I can pick one and tell him to run with it.
The three strategies would be containment, reconciliation, and neutrality. Neutrality is the most interesting, because I can think of more things to say about that than the others. I note that Sunni players such as Saudi Arabia are always asking us to pick them to be on our side and President Obama seems reluctant to do that, because he thinks it would make everyone angry. 
The best way to show neutrality would be to chastise Iran instead of leaving them to bask in the warm bath of their so-called "sanctions".* And put those troops back in Iraq. Any further questions? 
*Note one of the worst effects of sanctions is thousands of cancer patients needing radiation treatment. And yet the production of the needed 20% enriched uranium is treated as a crime. They aren't building a weapon, they are saving lives. 

You're a More Innovative Man Than I Am, Gunga Din!

Professor Chris Trimble invents weird bullshit because that is his job:
In March 2009, Logitech formed a special team with an urgent mission. The maker of computer peripherals, especially keyboards and mice, had been caught off-guard when consumers in China unexpectedly fell in love with a new mouse that was not Logitech’s. The company closely monitored its direct rivals, especially Microsoft, but this market insurgency was engineered by a Chinese company called Rapoo, at best a faint blip on Logitech’s radar screen.

You may think that this storyline, in which a healthy multinational finds itself under siege from a developing world upstart, is unlikely or unusual. If so, think again. Thanks to the rising phenomenon of reverse innovation, we can expect that the scene that played out at Logitech will repeat itself in industry after industry.
What? Reverse innovation?
Reverse innovation defined

A reverse innovation is any innovation that is adopted first in the developing world. To be clear: What makes an innovation a reverse innovation has nothing to do with where the innovators are, and it has nothing to do with where the companies are. It has only to do with where the customers are.

Historically, reverse innovation has been a rare phenomenon. In fact, the logic for innovations flowing downhill, from the rich world to the developing world, is natural and intuitive. After all, it is the richest customers in the richest countries that will always demand the newest technologies. In due time, the costs of new technologies come down, and incomes in the developing world rise. As a result, innovations trickle down. Right?

Be careful. The intuitive assumption that poor countries are engaged in a process of gradually catching up with the rich world has become toxic. It is a strategic blind spot that has the potential to sink an increasingly common aspiration: to generate high growth in the emerging economies. The assumption can even inflict long-term damage in home markets. That is because surprisingly often, reverse innovations defy gravity and flow uphill to the rich world. As a result, a defeat in a developing country half a world away can lead directly to a stinging blow in your own back yard.
Be careful of assumptions rick folks! You may find you have them exactly BACKWARDS. Haw haw.
STILL WAITING FOR A POST-DEFENSIVE-CROUCH DEMOCRATIC PARTY

President Barack Obama had hoped for a quick, convincing strike on Syria, but growing opposition and Great Britain’s stunning rejection of the attack has thrust him into the uncomfortable position of go-it-alone hawk.

Just how Obama, whose career sprung from the ashes of George W. Bush's Iraq policy, got to this extraordinary moment in his presidency is a tale of good intentions, seat-of-the-pants planning and, above all, how a cautious commander-in-chief became imprisoned by a promise.
--Politico

Andrew Sullivan used to say that we needed to elect Barack Obama because he was the guy who was going to save us from the Clintons and their generational peers, all of whom were still endlessly re-fighting the Vietnam War decades later. But more and more, it's starting to look as if the generational cohort we need to rid ourselves of is one that includes both Obama and the Clintons. It's the cohort that came of age in national politics in the past thirty years.

The Republicans in this cohort are crazy, of course. But the Democrats are problematic: stung by the success of Reaganism, they're in a defensive crouch, desperate to prove that they're post-liberal, at least on the biggest issues. They don't want to frighten bankers or Joe Scarborough's pals. They especially don't want to frighten heartland white people, who, they assume, are all still Reaganites -- obsessed with government spending and determined to be muscular in foreign policy.

I supported Obama over Hillary Clinton in 2008 because I thought Hillary, like her husband, would tend toward precisely this sort of don't-frighten-the-centrists timidity. It wasn't just that she initially backed the Iraq War -- it's that she tended toward panders like her support for a ban on flag-burning. I feared she'd frequently tack right as president, under the slightest pressure. I thought Obama might do so less often -- I thought preemptive surrender to right-wing demagoguery was a Clinton family tic.

Alas, it seems to be a tic common to virtually every big-league Democrat who lived through the Reagan years (and, for that matter, the Dukakis campaign).

And so we get Obama's craving for an economic "grand bargain" (although he at least insists on a quid pro quo, which means he'll never get a deal, because Republicans don't compromise). We get Obama's surveillance regime and drone policy and, now, an impending go-it-alone war. It's because no Democrat his age or older with national ambitions would ever dare to venture left of Reagan Lite.

Now, I still support Obama, and I'll support Hillary in 2016 if she's the nominee because, well, consider the alternatives -- Republicans are crazy on everything, except Rand Paul, who's crazy on everything except militarism. But I'm wondering when, if ever, we'll see an A-list Democrat who's not terrified of deviating from centrism on defense or economics.

I say this because I'm in New York and I'm watching Bill de Blasio break away from the pack in the mayoral primary -- two new polls this week show him with a double-digit lead -- based on an expressly progressive campaign focused on reducing economic inequality and dialing back stop-and-frisk (crime-fighting being the city's version of foreign policy).

It was assumed that de Blasio wouldn't do very well, that a city where Rudy Giuliani won twice and Mike Bloomberg won three times would go for a moderate Democrat pledging a significant level of continuity with Bloomberg, someone like Christine Quinn or Bill Thompson. But talking about inequality and hyperaggressive police tactics is actually striking a chord here. It's not because de Blasio comes off as a bomb-thrower a la Alan Grayson (or even Anthony Weiner in his congressional days) -- it's because he seems like a steady guy who's also progressive.

I know, I know -- that's how Obama has campaigned, twice. And yes, he's given us a health care law of some progressivity and some significant breakthroughs on social issues. And he did raise taxes on the wealthy. And he's certainly saved us from the right's worst excesses.

But de Blasio, in attacking stop-and-frisk in particular, is veering toward the very shoals where Democrats have foundered in this city. The last Democratic mayor (David Dinkins, for whom de Blasio worked) lost reelection because it was widely believed that he was a squishy liberal who'd failed on crime. The rap on Democrats here has long been that they're soft on crime the way Democrats nationally are said to be soft on defense. Obama never stops overcorrecting to rebut the latter belief. De Blasio doesn't seem to care about the former. And it's working for him.

I don't see any Democrat on the horizon willing to test the premise that being skeptical about militarism and being in favor of economic progressivity could actually be acceptable to heartland voters -- or even quite appealing. So I'll settle for the Dems we've got. But I wish we could do better.

Cheap shots: Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar, sometimes it's not


Robert Dudley dancing the lavolta with Queen Elizabeth I. Possibly by Marcus Gheeraerts, ca. 1580. Wikipedia.

Armed and dangerous:
A state senator who is advocating for arming teachers in the aftermath of the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, accidentally shot a teacher with a rubber bullet during a training course, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reports. [jump]
Arkansas Sen. Jeremy Hutchinson (R) recently participated in “active shooter” training and mistakenly shot a teacher who was confronting a so-called bad guy. The experience gave Hutchinson “some pause” but failed to shake his confidence in the plan. (ThinkProgress)
Certainly makes you think twice; after all, if the teacher had been armed she could have stopped him. Don't we have a right to defend ourselves against incompetent Republicans?


Rockin' Jim DeMint!
Rocking the chairs. I guess.

In other news from the realm of the DeMinted, Jedi knight Steve Scalise has banished the Heritage Foundation from meetings of the Republican Study Committee, apparently in retaliation for the foundation's extremely unhelpful agita over the farm bill last month.

The National Journal's richly reported account of the tiff does not have much to say about a possible role for John Boehner, but I'm getting flashes of His Orangitude quietly making an attempt to take control of the caucus he supposedly leads but is normally tossed around by like the similarly colored Elizabeth I doing the lavolta with the Earl of Leicester. This could be good news (no snark) for the US economy, but I'm not counting on it. Which Jedi knight would he be?

Did Jimmy Savile fancy manicures?
Enjoys being a guy:

Steve "Stud" Lonegan (Caveman-NJ) is anxious to distinguish himself from Cory Booker in the race for the late Frank Lautenberg's Senate seat:
"I don't like going out in the middle of the night, or any time of the day, for a manicure and pedicure. It was described as his particular fetish," Lonegan added. "I have a more particular fetish. I like a good scotch and a cigar. That's my fetish, but we'll just compare the two." (CBS)
I would take the manicure thing as proof positive that Booker identifies sexually as a politician, or, in the argot, "baby-kisser". No closeted gay man would admit to midnight manicures, but a politician might. Think of Rudy Giuliani, with his lisp and his authentic love for opera (which I share) and his weird penchant for wearing drag. If he were gay he obviously would have concealed these things.

Lonegan, on the other hand, makes me wonder. Being a Republican and fixated on homosexuality is plainly suspicious to start with, as we've come to learn over the last few years. And then isn't it unusual to refer to a cigar as a "fetish"? What exactly do you do with that cigar, sir?


Hmm, let me see... bloody Iranian civil war, Israel desperate to save Iranian lives, ayatollahs zap Tehran suburbs with massive chemical weapons attack... No, don't believe I remember that. I do recall diabolical Iranian plot to cure cancer, Israeli frustration, sending MEK thugs to gun down Iranian scientists in the street didn't seem to be stopping it. Would that be what you had in mind?
Persian War, via.



Browns Tailgating Tips

One of my favorite part of Browns games is tailgating. Obviously. Boozing outside with hundreds of your closest friends? Everyone decked out in Brownie's gear and super excited to be there. Nothing better!

But there are a few things to remember for a Brown's tailgate. 

1. Dress in layers. Football season in Cleveland can range from insanely hot and humid to damn cold and snowy. And everything in between. Plus, if you're tailgating early then heading to a 1:00 game, it's likely it will warm up. So layers!


Currently wearing long sleeve shirts, two t-shirts and hooded sweathsirt.
I didn't start off with the hoodie but added it as the wind picked up.
Joys of a stadium on the lake!
2. WEAR GLOVES. This was a lesson learned the hard way. I showed up to tail gate without gloves, and holding a cup of icy beer when the wind is blowing off Lake Erie? Your fingers go numb real quick.


Oh so happy with those gloves. And totally worth the $5 I begged someone to loan me!

3. Expect snow. Always.


No personal photos. But had to show you all that we will tailgate, no matter the weather.
4. So I'm realizing all of these revolve around being warm. But being warm makes tailgating and Browns games SO much better. I'm a freeze baby. Next tip- wear a warm hat and it doesn't matter how ridiculous you look. 


The two of us drunk at a game.
While my significant other was at work and his was still in Chicago.
Plus...Doug likes the Packers and Ashley like the Bears. Weirdos

5. Drink. Beer jackets warm you up. And make sure you charge your phone. Because when you are drunk AND your phone dies, you tend to get separated from your group and everyone panics. I really wish I had the photographic evidence of this! It didn't happen to me...but another friend who will rename nameless. 

6. And if you show up at a Browns game dressed in anything besides a jersey/jeans/hoodies/Carhart overalls (yes this is normal in Cleveland), you will be mocked. So just leave the dress/glitter/heels at home.


And of course linking up with the lovely Whitney and Sarah today!!

IT'S THE CONSPIRACY THEORIES THAT GOT SMALL

Michael Hastings was reportedly working on a story about CIA director John Brennan at the time of his death in a car crash. Now, if you're conspiracy-minded, that would be enough to make you wonder what world-shaking secrets Hastings might have been pursuing. If you think powerful, sinister forces arranged Hastings's fatal accident, you'd assume it was because he was seeking information that could literally change history once it was revealed.

On the other hand, if you're Jerome Corsi of World Net Daily, you'd conclude that Hastings died because he was going to ... confirm some of the main tenets of birtherism.

Yes, that's what Corsi suggests that the death was all about: the contents of Barack Obama's passport file:
Before his death in a fiery car crash, Michael Hastings was preparing to publish a major investigative piece tied to the undercover agent who is suspected of sanitizing President Obama’s passport records prior to the 2008 presidential election....

On Aug. 12, Kimberly Dvorak reported for San Diego 6 News that Hastings at the time of his death was working on an exposé on CIA director John Brennan....

WND has previously reported that Brennan played a controversial role in what many suspect was an effort to sanitize Obama's passport records prior to the 2008 presidential election.
Now, hang on -- this gets convoluted:
On March 21, 2008, during the 2008 presidential campaign, two unnamed contract employees for the State Department were fired and a third unnamed State Department contract employee was disciplined for breaching the passport file of Democratic presidential candidate and then-senator Barack Obama....

The New York Times reported March 21, 2008, that the security breach had involved unauthorized searches of the passport records not just of Obama, but also of then-presidential contenders Sens. John McCain and Hillary Clinton.

... the New York Times attributed the breaches to "garden-variety snooping by idle employees" that was "not politically motivated." ...
However -- and I hope you're sitting down for this:
The New York Times noted that the files examined were likely to contain sensitive personal information, including Social Security numbers, addresses and dates of birth as well as passport applications and other biographical information that would pertain to U.S. citizenship.
OMIGOD! Social Security numbers! Birth addresses! Other biographical information that would pertain to U.S. citizenship!

And now for "The Brennan connection":
The New York Times noted the two offending State Department contract employees who were fired had worked for Stanley Inc., a company based in Arlington, Va., while the reprimanded worker continued to be employed by the Analysis Corporation of McLean, Va....

At that time, Stanley Inc. was a 3,500-person technology firm that had just won a $570 million contract to provide computer-related passport services to the State Department, headed by Brennan, who then serving as an adviser on intelligence and foreign policy to Obama's presidential campaign.
So the people involved worked for Brennan! Excuse, um, not all of them!

And the real story here, Jerome?
One investigative reporter, Kenneth Timmerman, said a well-placed but unnamed source told him that the real point of the passport breaches was to cauterize the Obama file, removing from it any information that could prove damaging to his presidential eligibility.

According to this theory, the breaches of McCain's and Clinton's files were done for misdirection purposes, to create confusion and to suggest the motives of the perpetrators were attributable entirely to innocent curiosity.
And, we're led to assume, Michael Hastings was on the brink of discovering all this about Obama's birth and travels and, presumably, multiple fraudulent Social Security numbers -- and for that HASTINGS HAD TO DIE.

Good grief.

Look, I'm not a Hastings conspiratorialist -- but if you're one, think big, fer crissakes. Don't tell me John Brennan would have Hastings killed for ... this.

Corsi does wrap this up with a ridiculous coda titled "Brennan tilts toward Islam." (Sample of evidence: "In his speech to the New York University law school students posted on YouTube by the White House, Brennan included a lengthy statement in Arabic that he did not translate for his English-speaking audience.") So I guess the plot to "cauterize" Obama's passport file was all part of a massive conspiracy to make the U.S. part of the global caliphate, spearheaded by that noted crypto-Islamist John Brennan.

I really wish I believed in a God and an afterlife, because I'd love to believe that Jerome Corsi would someday stand in judgment before the Pearly Gates, and, when asked to give an account of what he did with his life, he could only say, "I spent all my waking hours making people stupider."
THE CATHOLIC LEAGUE'S BILL DONOHUE: OBJECTIVELY PRO-SHARIA?

The latest missive from Bill Donohue:
MILEY V. MUSLIMS

... Last Sunday, at the MTV Video Music Awards, Miley Cyrus simulated masturbation with a giant foam finger, grabbed her crotch, rubbed herself against a man old enough to be her father, pretended the man was performing anal sex on her, and walked around in a nude latex bikini. Her mother loved it. So did her manager. Millions of young girls and guys loved it as well.

Next month, the Miss World pageant will be held in Indonesia. Some Muslims are urging the government to cancel the event. According to the leader, Riziek Shihab, "The Miss World pageant is only an excuse to exhibit women's body parts."

Who are the real feminists? Miley's fans? Or the Muslims? If debasing women is the yardstick, the Muslims win.
Here's the illustration that accompanies this:





I guess Bill is telling us that if he had to make a choice, he'd side with the society that dresses women the way the woman on the right is dressed, rather than with our society.

Noted, Bill.

Donohue goes on to write:
In this regard, the Catholic position is instructive.

Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical, Humanae Vitae, was a clarion call to men and women: today's culture allows men to sexually exploit women, cheapening relations between them. Pope John Paul II spoke eloquently about the commodification of sexuality, offering us a "Theology of the Body."
Right -- because there was no sexual exploitation of women pre-Elvis. There was no rape, no molestation of the underage. All that was invented by rockers and R&B musicians. Oh, and Madalyn Murray O'Hair.

(And I guess there was no non-sexual exploitation of women prior to "today's culture." You may think the Irish slave-labor camps known as the Magdalene Laundries brutally exploited young girls at least as far back as 1922, and the Irish government may agree -- in June it agreed to pay up to 58 million euros in compensation to survivors of the Laundries -- but Donohue has said that the horror stories are "all a lie.")

****

Look, the Miley Cyrus performance at the VMAs wasn't to my taste, but she's gotten a bad rap for doing something that would have generated a hundred gushing Cultural Studies papers if it had been done by Madonna or Lady Gaga. I've read that Cyrus is guilty of racist "cultural appropriation" -- what, you mean like every white popular musician since Bill Haley and the Comets? Like Madonna making goo-goo eyes at a black Jesus in the "Like a Prayer" video, or vogueing a few years later as if vogueing were something she was teaching black gay men to do, rather than the other way around? I've read that Cyrus was way too young to get all sexy with that Robin Thicke guy (she's 20 years old, and two of the models who are actually topless in his "Blurred Lines" video are 21 and 23). Oh, and doesn't stealing the entire rhythm track for that song from Marvin Gaye qualify as a wee bit of "cultural appropriation" on Thicke's part?

I think cultural commentators aren't cutting Cyrus any slack because she doesn't seem to give a crap about winning their respect, the way Madonna and Gaga and Justin Timberlake do. She's not serious. (Jesus, that endless Timberlake medley was so joylessly precise it was almost Prussian. But most ultra-choreographed Big Pop has looked that way to me in the post-Michael Jackson era.) She's a spoiled brat and she's having fun. All that sex stuff wasn't a critique of the cis-hegemonic gender performativity or whatever-the-hell -- it was a big, stupid joke that didn't really work. Fine. If this were politics, we'd say it clearly wasn't focus-grouped. There are worse things.

(Also see Tamara Shayne Kagel, who makes the point that Cyrus seemed to be in charge of the sexy bits while performing her own song and Thicke's, while the topless women in Thicke's video are just meant to be eye candy. To get back to a word Bill Donohue used, which comes closer to "exploitation"?)

Those Student Loans Were for What Again?

Okay, you have your degree. Are you still a dummy?
For years, employers have relied on graduating students' grade point averages to assess their skills and potential. But employers as well as colleges have been wondering for years, can a GPA alone really tell you that much?

Next spring, seniors at 200 colleges will be offered the chance to take a new test billed by some as a "post-grad exit exam," which may prove more important than that coveted high GPA.

The 90-minute Collegiate Learning Assessment Plus (CLA+) is an expansion of the Collegiate Learning Assessment, which 700 schools have already used to measure their own performances. On a scale of 1600 (like the SATs), the CLA+ evaluates students' problem solving, quantitative reasoning, writing and critical reasoning faculties.

"What we’re offering to students is the opportunity to illustrate to employers that they have these skills," Chris Jackson, director of business development at the Council for Aid to Education, the non-profit that created the CLA+, told MSN News.
Student guide with sample question here in a PDF.
JUST HOW FAR COULD THE RIGHT TAKE NULLIFICATION OF FEDERAL LAW?

This is just insane revanchism:
Unless a handful of wavering Democrats change their minds, the Republican-controlled Missouri legislature is expected to enact a statute next month nullifying all federal gun laws in the state and making it a crime for federal agents to enforce them here. A Missourian arrested under federal firearm statutes would even be able to sue the arresting officer.

The law amounts to the most far-reaching states' rights endeavor in the country, the far edge of a growing movement known as "nullification" in which a state defies federal power....

The measure was vetoed last month by Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat, as unconstitutional. But when the legislature gathers again on Sept. 11, it will seek to override his veto, even though most experts say the courts will strike down the measure. Nearly every Republican and a dozen Democrats appear likely to vote for the override....
Will the courts strike down the override? If the nullification craze picks up steam, and becomes respectable and somewhat within-the-pale, is it so crazy to think that the Roberts Court might someday agree, perhaps in an Obamacare-nullification case, if not in a gun case? (I'm operating on the assumption that no Democratic president -- not Obama, not Hillary -- will ever get another justice on the Supreme Court until the number of Republicans in the Senate drops below 40.)

What else could Republicans seek to nullify? Could they conclude that the federal government has no right to prevent them from limiting voting rights to property owners, thus excluding the majority of students and poor people? Could they decide that the Constitution's Commerce Clause doesn't extend to the in-state housing market, and therefore it's lawful to refuse to sell or rent a house or apartment to someone on the basis of race or national origin? Wouldn't laws of this kind be electorally useful in a state that's either purple or trending purple because of changing demographics -- Texas, say, or Georgia, or North Carolina?

What's the limit here? How far could the right go with this? Why should we suppose it will stop with guns and Obamacare? Why should we assume that the courts will always rebuff such efforts?

Bias confirmation

Hard to imagine myself saying this about a New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief, but I really like Jodi Rudoren; she doesn't particularly deviate from any party line that you might suspect her of hewing to, but she's just a good writer, with a curiosity about people tangential to the beat, and surprising insights:
The retired men who parse politics on Monday mornings over cappuccino at the Hadar Mall here have watched all manner of war, uprisings and chaos. To them, the chemical attacks to the north in Syria and the military crackdown against Islamists to the south in Egypt are almost comforting, a confirmation of a common Israeli view that their Arab neighbors are unready for democracy, while also offering a diversion from their own conflict with the Palestinians.
What a beautiful way of capturing the conservatism of simple people in a quick brushstroke—the emotional frame that confirmation bias hangs on. What people long for isn't peace and goodwill, they want to know that we are still the good guys and the other guys are still bad.

Journalistic scruples compel her to say "almost comforting" but I would lose the "almost".
Funny—I'm looking for a picture of old guys in a Jerusalem coffee shop and this is the only good one I can find. Baumers Abroad, 2011. Anyway Rudoren would be talking to them too, for a different article.

REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE FOR MAYOR OF NEW YORK THINKS STOP-AND-FRISK IS CHARACTER-BUILDING

Get stopped and frisked? It's your fault:
... the leading Republican candidates on Wednesday said they would not mind if their own son or daughter were stopped and frisked by the police.

In a live televised debate, John A. Catsimatidis, the billionaire owner of the Gristedes supermarket chain, described the stops as a "temporary thing," until technology allowed officers to detect guns from afar. And while he said rookie officers should receive additional training, he shrugged off the prospect of his son being stopped.

"I would say to him, 'Well, what did you do to provoke it?'" he said. "I would say to him, 'Were you dressed funny? Were you walking funny? Did you look funny?'" He added of the policing tactic, "I would sit down, have a father-to-son talk with him and say to him that we need it."
His rivals were equally dismissive:
Joe Lhota said he would give his daughter a copy of Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court case outlining reasonable stops, and, if the protocols weren't followed, "then I would actually say that we have a situation here."

"But the reality is that 90 percent of the millions of stops that have happened in the city of New York have happened in compliance with the constitutional rights that have been put forward by the Supreme Court," Lhota said.

"My son John isn't going to get stopped," said George McDonald, the founder of the Doe Fund. "That's the whole point."
Well, you're right about that, white man. (Though you'd think there'd be more sympathy on this from the founder of the Doe Fund, which gives training and jobs, many of them menial, to ex-prisoners and homeless people, many of them people of color. Then again, McDonald is a Republican, so I guess we can't assume that he's actually asked any of his group's beneficiaries about this.)

It matters what these men think, because "deep-blue" New York hasn't elected a Democratic mayor since 1989, and there really is no guarantee that the streak will be broken this year. McDonald is unlikely to win the primary, and Giuliani pal Lhota has consistently led in the polls, but supermarket mogul Catsimatidis -- the guy who thinks stop-and-frisk would be a swell teachable moment for his son -- is within striking distance. (What about being stopped over and over again, as most young black males are in this city in their teens and twenties? In 2011, there were more stops of young black men in the city than there are young black men.)

And with the most progressive Democrat in the race, Bill de Blasio, now holding a significant lead in his party's race, I predict that much of the establishment in the city will back Lhota or Catsimatidis in the general election. We know the New York Post will, but so will the Daily News, I assume (it blasted the recent judicial ruling that put curbs on stop-and-frisk).

I suppose the Times will endorse de Blasio, but I bet it will be with so many qualifications and "however"s that the endorsement will be read as just the opposite. (Did I mention the fact that de Blasio would like to raise taxes on the rich? Even though the state government would probably block a city tax increase, the movers and shakers don't like people who make proposals like that.)

New York could elect another Republican mayor. Don't rule it out.
WORDS FAIL ME




(Source.)

Wormtongues

A bag of nightcrawlers unearthed by BooMan: A letter by self-denominated "foreign policy experts from across the ideological spectrum" running in the Weekly Standard urging the president
not only to ensure that Assad’s chemical weapons no longer threaten America, our allies in the region or the Syrian people, but also to deter or destroy the Assad regime’s airpower and other conventional military means of committing atrocities against civilian non-combatants.  At the same [jump]
Royal Selangor Wormtongue wine flute.

time, the United States should accelerate efforts to vet, train, and arm moderate elements of Syria’s armed opposition, with the goal of empowering them to prevail against both the Assad regime and the growing presence of Al Qaeda-affiliated and other extremist rebel factions in the country.
The "ideological spectrum" they're talking about is a little like the range of the actress of whom Dorothy Parker said that she ran the gamut from A to B, with former wunderkind Mickey O'Hanlon and ex-philosophe Bernard-Henri Lévi representing the Left (I guess Lévi is a kind of protohipster Gaullist, making him pretty far left by American standards, over there around Joe Lieberman, another signer). There's editor William Kristol, who seems of late to have taken to demonstrating his intellectual cred by calling himself "Dr. William Kristol" (Harvard 1979, in the rigorous field of "government"). What Boo noticed, putting a little knot of dread in my stomach, is that many of the same names appeared on the letter to President Clinton from the Project for a New American Century of January 1998 in which they launched their campaign to conquer Mesopotamia in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Market. This is a crowd of unrepentantly bloodthirsty scoundrels and frauds whose cumulative wrongness is comparable to that of the French establishment in 1870.

I'm not really worried yet. I think there are decent reasons for believing President Obama knows what he's up to here. He likes to say that the wars he's against are the "dumb wars" and the choice of Libya for his big response to the Arab Spring shows that he means it (it was the one place where intervention could have done more good than harm, and it seems to me that on balance it really did). Drone campaigns, in my view, are a mistake ("C'était pire qu'un crime, c'était une faute"), because no matter how many lives they save as opposed to ground troops, it doesn't seem that way to the population on whose heads the missiles are falling; they have a very bad effect on those famous "hearts and minds"—nevertheless the idea of it, the saving of lives, was a smart one. Vulcan-smart, so to speak, missing out on the emotional message.

He has also been smart, to date, in dealing with pressure, especially from Israel, to commit to very dumb adventures, especially in Iran—though as I've said before it seems pretty cold, the fearsome sanctions on Iran being more harmful to the population than a couple of bombing raids on remote areas could be. I think this is true for Syria as well.

The situation in Syria is far, far worse than the situation in Iraq 11 years ago. That was a terrible place above all for anyone suspected, rightly or wrongly, of opposing the regime, which in practice meant the educated, which meant the relatively well-to-do—those, in fact, who were able to escape to comfort in the West, as so many did (Saddam Hussein's genocidal terror against Kurds and Shiites had been calmed for years, largely thanks to Clinton's "no-fly zone"). Syria today is an unspeakably bad place for everybody. In that sense there is far more justification for attacking the Syrian regime than there was for the Iraqi one. But the question for the US has to be not whether we can "do something", but whether doing something can do any good.

The president seemed to have concluded that it couldn't, for reasons that ought to be much clearer to people like O'Hanlon and the Kagan clan than to me (if that "expert" tag meant anything) but somehow aren't: the monocultural character of the opposition in a densely multicultural country, the inability of opposition forces to unite, the deeply unsuitable terrain. The purpose of that Red Line, warning Bashar al-Assad not to use chemical weapons, was to say something instead; to settle moral qualms by making a commitment that wouldn't in the end be tested. Of course the thing is that dictator thugs are stupid people, too stupid even to play a game of chicken properly. So here we are anyhow.

If Obama's war plans are strictly to "send a message"—they've figured out, apparently, that they'd better not bomb the actual chemical weapons and kill thousands in a poison emergency—what happens if, or when, Bashar doesn't listen? I hope it doesn't mean listening to what criminal Elliott Abrams and idiot Douglas Feith ("fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth") say in the Weekly Standard.
Grima by Lego.
Update:


It's a tad confusing, but reassuring at the same time... Chemical weapons are evidently a threat to world security that must be dealt with, even if deployed by a country that hasn't signed the treaty. Sounds like a plan to me, as a non-lawyer, but I bet countries with hundreds of nuclear weapons that refused to sign the NPT (hint: they have a disputed border with Syria!) will not be asked to obey.
JONAH GOLDBERG FORGETS THAT HE'S SUPPOSED TO FAKE AGREEMENT WITH MARTIN LUTHER KING

Charlie Pierce makes an importannt point about Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech:
As the president mounts the podium at the Lincoln Memorial today to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Dr. King's speech, we are reminded (ceaselessly) about one thing that Dr. King said in his address:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
There it is. That's the great loophole. It is an otherwise unremarkable sentiment given the context of the entire address, but, for the people who almost certainly would have lined up on the other side of the movement in 1963, it subsequently has been used as an opening through which all manner of historically backsliding mischief has come a'wandering in, from "reverse discrimination" to Allan Bakke, to what is going on today with the franchise in too many places, to the reaction to the killing of Trayvon Martin and the acquittal of George Zimmerman. Modern conservatives have used that line to conscript Dr. King into their ideology, now that he's dead and unable to speak for himself. It's the only line in the speech that they remember.
It really is the only King line right-wingers remember, though they portray themselves as King's true heirs, while braying that his actual heirs and admirers are the betrayers of his vision.

Curiously, Jonah Goldberg didn't get the memo about King being a secret right-winger. Over at the L.A. Times, he acknowledges that King said other thing and believed other things. What's more, he's willing to admit that he and his fellow conservatives don't like the other things King believed:
Amid the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the March for Jobs and Freedom, there was a recurring complaint: What about economic justice?

It is a source of enormous frustration among many on the left that Martin Luther King Jr.'s deservedly iconic status doesn't lend more support and credence to his economic ideas.

... Even after the march, A. Philip Randolph, its director and opening speaker received more coverage than King. Randolph spoke of civil rights, but he also emphasized more typical left-wing economic fare: "It falls to us to demand new forms of social planning, to create full employment and to put automation at the service of human needs, not at the service of profits."

... Many on the left have felt frustrated that this agenda, subscribed to wholeheartedly by King, doesn't share the same moral and political stature as King's dream of a colorblind society.

The frustration is understandable, but it stems from a fundamental confusion. As many have long noted, the genius of King's appeal to an ideal of colorblindness was deeply patriotic, rooted in the foundational principles of the republic....

But in America at least, appeals to social planning and guaranteed economic rights are not universal. They are, deservedly, controversial and contestable....

Today, conservatives, who were too often on the wrong side of civil rights in 1963, are champions of race neutrality, while King's self-appointed heirs are more inclined to champion the ideas that never spoke to the hearts of all Americans.
Give Goldberg credit for candor. Give him credit for being an honest enough conservative not to wrap himself in King's mantle -- on the fiftieth anniversary of the March -- and not to pretend that King was really just the first teabagger.

Goldberg thinks America shares his distaste for King's economic message -- and, alas, he may have a point (there certainly isn't much anger in this country about the increasing gap between haves and have-nots, even among the have-nots). But that's not something America should be proud of.

On the whole, Martin Luther King was on one side and conservatives -- then and (especially) now -- were on the other. At least Jonah Goldberg doesn't pretend otherwise.

Les Crane







And of course...

I Win! A Liebster that is...



So I have had a few different bloggers nominate me for a Liebster Award. And I have a few new faces around here thanks to the lovely Beth, so figure this would be a great way to get to know me! 

I'm sure you have all seen the Liebster Awards floating around. And two of my favorite bloggers have nominated me. Monica over at The Empty Teacups (girl loves tea and Harry Potter as much as me- we were obviously meant to be friends) and Joanna at Jo(w)anna Know What? (another Ohio girl whose posts always crack me up). Go check them both out- you won't regret it!

And now onto the rules. Which I'm only going to follow loosely....but that's ok because it's my blog. 
  1. Answer the 11 questions the person who nominated you asks
  2. Nominate 11 other small blogs
  3. Create 11 questions they will answer
  4. Let them know you nominated them
Here are the questions from Joanna:
 
1. What is your favorite hobby? (Besides blogging of course)
I love cooking and watching incredibly way too much TV- currently that includes Breaking Bad, old episodes of Grey's Anatomy, Newsroom...and of course Project Runway and America's Next Top Model.

2. If a real life genie appeared while you did your weekly lamp polishing, what would be your 3 wishes?
First- pay off all our student loans. Second- a new car. Third- vacation for the husband and I. Something longer than a weekend in Toronto. 

3. If you could leave right now for a 2 week vacation, where would you go?
While I'm really in the mood for a beach vacation, if we're talking two weeks- it would definitely be Europe- including the Czech Republic, Greece and Italy.

4. If you were a super hero, what powers would you have?
Flying. I hate sitting in a car/driving oh so incredibly much. I would love to  be able to get somewhere quickly by flying. 

5. What is your guilty pleasure?
Anything gummy- worms, peach rings, bears. I love them. And let's be honest here...wine. Lots of it.
 
6. What is a cool family tradition you have, or have started? 
I absolutely love all Christmas family traditions. Since this is the first year we were married, it was also the first year I didn't go home on Christmas Eve to my parents house. Instead, Doug and I went to church with  my brother and sister-in-law and her family, and then came home, opened presents and watched Die Hard. I don't know if this is really a "cool" family tradition...but it's one of the first ones we started on our own. And I think I love it.

7. What is your favorite childhood memory?
4H camp. 100% my favorite thing ever. I attended for 8 years, and was a counselor for 4. Loved every minute of it.

Hilarious picture of some great friends at camp
8. What historical figure would you love to see in 21st century life?
Julia Child. But only if we could be friends...or I could eat her food every day. She's my favorite. 
 
9. What is your favorite holiday?
Christmas. For sure. And pretty much any summer holiday because grilling out and spending time outside with family/friends it the best. 

10. If you were ever to be famous, what would you be famous for?
Dang girl- these are rough questions. And I'm trying to write this after 3 glasses of wine and a rough day
 
11. What is quote that you live by?
Don't compare yourself to others.
People who love to eat are the best people -Julia Child
 
 
And here are the questions from my girl Monica.

1. If you could live anyplace in the world (or not) where would you live? 
Honestly- I would love to live in San Fran. It's my favorite city in the US by far. Or I would move back to the Czech Republic. Because really- two most gorgeous places ever.

2. What is your dream job? 
An event planner....but not like the event planning I'm doing now. One with a little more of a budget with a little lot higher pay.

3. Why did you start blogging?
I loved reading blogs, and I wanted a place to write. As a journalism major, writing grants just wasn't cutting it.

4. Where did your blog name come from?
I went to Ohio University, located in Athens, Ohio. I started this blog- with a focus on life post-grad. Hence Life After Athens.

5. What is your favorite cold weather activity? 
I love sled riding- but don't get to do it enough. Or just staying inside- curled up under a blanket, watching a good movie or show.

6. If someone gave you $1000 what would you splurge on? (You can’t pay bills with this money) Shopping spree...with lots of fall clothes.
 
7. What is one beauty staple you can’t live without? 
Honestly, I rarely wear makeup. As in maybe once a week- and that's probably high. I will say my hair detangler though...

8. What is your favorite blogging tool? 
PicMonkey
 
9. Do you read the book or wait for the movie? 
Definitely book.

10. Are you a morning person or a night owl? 
Um...neither? I am a grump in the morning...though once I'm awake, I'm good- no matter how early. And depending on the day- I love nighttime...but normal days I'm in bed by 10 at the latest.

11. Coke or Pepsi? 
COKE. 100% Coke.

And holy damn this is a long post. So I'm going to ignore the nominating other bloggers part- most of you have done it any way! Hope I didn't bore you all to death.


photo signature_zps9507e200.jpg
THIS TIME IT'S (SOMEWHAT) DIFFERENT: "EXTREMISTS ON BOTH SIDES" VS. THE MORNING JOE GREENROOM

A lot of people are seeing the impending U.S. military action against Syria as the second coming of George W. Bush's Iraq War, especially now that there's an open letter from a Bill Kristol-led group of neocons endorsing the military option (yes, there's a significant overlap between the signers of this letter and those who signed the 2001 PNAC letter urging an attack on Iraq).

But back then, the entire Republican Party was on board, with the exception of a handful of paleoconservatives and libertarians (Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul). The right-wing base was absolutely on board -- rabid, in fact. Establishment Democrats largely came on board, although activist lefties in the general population were obviously opposed.

This time, the most politically engaged rank-and-file members of both the left and the right are deeply skeptical. I'm not saying that's going to matter much, but it's a change from 2002-03.

Rank-and-file righties hate both sides in Syria, and believe Obama is siding with Al Qaeda. Sample opinions from a Free Republic thread, in response to an article about support for military action from the likes of McCain, Graham, Rove, and Corker:
... I despise these people! This is truly unforgivable! We have no business going into Syria! Not at this late date when the only outcome will be AQ/Islamist control! Insanity!

****

These guys are on the same team as the Saudis. I would look for a connection in that direction. Probably not hard to find.

****

All the big-government globalists end up on the same side, don't they?

****

I don't know why it's surprising. I don't know about Corker, but the rest are RINOs and follow King Zero around they're his puppies.

****

I can't name a single rat in the senate actively pushing for war... just RINOS.
Yup -- to the base, you're now a RINO if you support military action, at least in this case. What a change from a decade ago. Maybe you're not surprised, but I thought the idea of killing Muslims was so satisfying to the rank-and-file right that they'd reluctantly back war even from the hated Obama. But Paulism has started to insinuate itself into the angry-right worldview -- these folks still hate Muslims, and would still like to express that hatred violently, but they don't automatically assume that war is the answer anymore.

I know, I know -- they'll all rally uncritically around any war President Christie sells them. But for now, they actually see the kind of muddle they couldn't see in the Bush years. And activist lefties are just as skeptical as they were in the Bush years -- we don't seem to be rallying around the president on this, the way some of us have rallied around him on the NSA -- so there's a higher overall level of skepticism in the general public.

Not that it will make much difference. Morning Joe greenroom types will be on board, and that's all that will matter.

The Freedom to Not Have Money

Hoover Institution asshole says what?
Fifty years ago, Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his “I have a dream” speech at the Lincoln Memorial to a crowd of over 200,000 people. The crowd had gathered to protest the dangerous state into which race relations had fallen in the summer of 1963. King’s memorable speech was part of “the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom,” and its solemn cadences ring as powerfully today they did 50 years ago. No one who heard it could forget its immensely powerful assault on segregation, the demise of which no respectable person—northerner or southerner—mourns today. No one should forget that King’s speech was a major catalyst in moving a still reluctant nation to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
State into which race relations had FALLEN? I suppose asshole is thinking back to the glorious era shortly after America's founding when the Founding Fathers ensured that nearly all the black people in the US had some kind of useful function.
But [King] slips badly when he says, “We can never be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote.” The two problems could not be more distinct. The exclusion from the polls of an individual by virtue of race is a denial of what King rightly names “citizenship rights.”

It is easy to think of a legal remedy that could be introduced against formal prohibitions against the right to vote
...okay...
just as it is easy to envision remedies to legal barriers to entry into labor markets. Striking them down is a no-brainer because at one stroke the new laws are able to expand opportunities for all citizens and shrink the size of government.
Whoa there, it isn't an end in itself to shrink government. Look at your cheapskate nation for fuck's sake.
But wanting some particular political agenda to come before a state legislature does not have those simple virtues. There are thousands of agendas from which to choose, and there is no reason to believe that all people of any race or group should unite behind any of them. While it is easy to forge a strong coalition to remove legal barriers to entry in political and economic markets, it is a treacherous business—and one easily derailed—to try to create a single substantive agenda that people of all races and from all walks of life should support.
Isn't there some process through which things like this are worked out? Word's on the tip of my tongue, starts with "politica". Being able to "have things for which to vote" seems like a pretty fucking good idea to me.
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...