"April Skies" - Jesus and Mary Chain
(A band for whom I have a big soft spot -- they remind me of a Scottish Ramones -- every song sounds more or less the same, but it's a song I really like -- dark and poppy at the same time.)
- I opened the Sunday Review section of the New York Times in bleary-eyed fashion (curse you NCAA)and was treated to two columns devoted to sexual matters in popular culture, one by Maureen Dowd and one by Frank Bruni. I wish this was an April Fool's Day joke, but it does not appear to be. Dowd, ever the ingenue -- she really should be banned from writing about sex -- seems stunned and titillated that sadomasochism exists (despite having perused her brother's copy of the Story of O back in the 70s) and that it is the subject of a popular novel, Fifty Shades of Grey. It seems beyond Dowd's imagination that in the world of S&M a large number (if not a majority) of submissives are men. Bruni, possibly the only person in the world less qualified to write about heterosexual sex than Dowd, (well maybe Rick Santorum too), weighs in as well on women's bleak sexual prospects as evidenced by a new HBO series Girls and, of course, Fifty Shades of Grey. Nicholas Kristof rounds out the day with yet another installment in his 5,000 part series of sexual trafficking, in this case his crusade against ads in the Village Voice for prostitution. (I knew I was desperate when I found myself seeking solace in a halfway sensible Thomas Friedman article.) All of this seems to me to part and parcel of a certain kind of middle-aged elite hysteria against sexual freedom for women -- this would be the liberal side of the hysteria. For the right wing side of this hysteria I invite you to read the comments to a sex and feminism-positive piece by Hannah Rosin in the Wall Street Journal. Amazing stuff if you can get through it.
- On the other hand, I quite liked this piece in the Baffler by Thomas Frank in which he notes the amazing fact that a decade of unmitigated folly by Washington elites -- in both the media and in policy circles -- has prompted virtually no recriminations. The hideous mistakes and blinkered ideology behind the twin stock market collapses of the decade, the bubbles in high tech and real estate and their consequences, the disaster of financial deregulation, and, for variety, the debacle of the Iraq war, have cost no one their slots on the Sunday talk shows or their column spaces or quotes. Frank, who is at his best in this kind of writing, attributes this outcome to an ethic of perverse solidarity and ideologically like-mindedness among those who form the narrow segment of political and economic thought deemed acceptable in Washington. (Big tip o' the hat by the way to Kathleen Geier who is back and really lighting it up on the weekends at the Washington Monthly.)
- Coincidentally, Scott LeMieux had a piece at LG&M yesterday in which he sagely states the same argument regarding the ACA that I was asserting in comments the other day -- that the law was inherently constrained by the policy prescriptions that would be acceptable to senators like Ben Nelson, Evan Bayh, Blanch Lincoln, Mary Landrieu, and Joe Lieberman, and that no bully pulpit in the world was going to give Barack Obama significant leverage with respect to these lawmakers.
- Speaking of the ACA, Suliivan had a piece the other day in which conservatives were arguing that people on the left were surprised by the hostility of questions from the Supreme Court on the mandate because we live arrogantly inside an ideological bubble. Jonathan Chait has a great, albeit depressing, rejoinder to this. Those of us with legal expertise have generally been most optimistic about the law's prospects because we understand that ample precedent strongly suggests that the law falls comfortably within mainstream commerce clause jurisprudence. Those on the left who view the Republican Supreme Court members as just more right wing politicians in robes have been warning us -- using Bush v. Gore and Citizens United as cautionary examples -- that the conservative (a true misnomer) members of the Court are largely committed right wing ideologues, loyal first and foremost to the cause not the Constitution. I'd like to think this is not the case, but I do worry.
- And just to remind everyone the kinds of things that are at stake. The notion that enormous asshole John Podhoretz, who owes his entire living to his cosmically scummy parents, thinks that covering children up to age 26 is a laughing matter is yet further testament to the fact self-awareness apparently doesn't exist on the right.
Time to do house work -- those goddamned clothes aren't going to fold themselves nor the rugs vacuum themselves. If I only had a slave.
It's open to your thoughts and concerns as always.
conservative (a true misnomer) members of the Court
So why not describe them accurately ?
I suggest:
"radical right"
"movement ideologue"
"corporatist reactionary"
Posted by: joel hanes | April 01, 2012 at 02:47 PM
Joel,
I think I don't do this to avoid sounding overly tendentious and ideological in each post. "Conservative" is the shorthand, its what they call themselves, it's the manner in which most of the media refer to them, and to turn each use of the phrase into the more colorful and accurate descriptions that you suggest would make the writing seem stiff and hyperbolic I think.
Having said that, there is nothing conservative about striking down a law that was painstakingly put together by the political branches to deal with what is arguably the largest social and economic problem our society faces.
Posted by: Sir Charles | April 01, 2012 at 03:19 PM
Hi Sir C,
Want to challenge you on a couple of points. First, please don't shuffle Nick Kristof's brave crusade against sex trafficking in with idiots saying that sexually liberated women are doomed to be miserable. If you'd read Kristof and WuDunn's book Half the Sky (as I have), you'd know there is nothing "liberated" about the girls (often quite young) and women he is writing about. These girls/women are sold into slavery, kept confined, and treated horribly. Standing up for them is definitely standing up for women's liberation. I highly recommend the book; it's painful to read in places (they also talk about abominations like "honor" killings and clitoridectomies), but ultimately uplifting as he describes the efforts indigenous women are making to free themselves and others in the same predicaments.
Also, I really think we in the progressive community need to be calling out the media's characterizations of the current right-wing as "conservative." Of course that's what they call themselves, as that implies that they are part of a mainstream and respectable tradition. But the reality is that they are radical rightists, and need to be named as such. Calling them "conservative" aides and abets their efforts to sound non-threatening to the general public, most of whom don't understand that their Medicare, rights/protections as workers, health care, education etc. are at stake, and that these people are planning to raise middle-class taxes and destroy social welfare programs in order to give the 1% still more tax breaks. The latest example of course is the SC's threat to the ACA: there is absolutely nothing "conservative" about ignoring years of precedent and overturning the will of the president, House and 60 Senators because you as a justice happen to be of the other party and don't like the bill or the current president.
Posted by: beckya57 | April 01, 2012 at 05:45 PM
excellent, becky! especially about "conservative" having become code for "radical rightists."
and radical right wing is just code for "you don't matter. only very rich important people matter. shut up and go away [you liberal feminist radical communist mass-coddling science-sucking porn-loving supporter of hating on the sacred sperm]." or something like that; it is hard to sort, day to day.
Posted by: kathy a. | April 01, 2012 at 06:23 PM
"Hating on the sacred sperm"--gotta love that.
Posted by: beckya57 | April 01, 2012 at 06:53 PM
it's not an original idea.
also, mother nature made lots of them because they're supposed to be wasted, mostly. also, in the olden days, one expected bunches of kids to die [birth accidents, disease, starvation], and bunches of moms to die also in childbirth or otherwise.
birth control and antibiotics and vaccinations are real miracles of decades in my life and those of my parents -- oh, a lot of other things, too, but those are biggies. we've gotten past the need for all possible sperm to impregnate someone, lest the species die off.
Posted by: kathy a. | April 01, 2012 at 07:46 PM
becky,
I don't mean to equate Kristoff with the other two airheads. And I think a lot of his work abroad is highly worthy.
But I think he is probably elevating the issue of domestic trafficking into a problem disproportionate to the levels in which it is actually occurring. I think he has developed a crusader's mentaility that is turning him into a bit of a Johnny One Note. He's become obsessed with these Village Voice ads recently and I just wonder if they are really worthy of all of the attention that he is devoting to them. He, like all Times columnists, has a pretty powerful megaphone. If he wants to focus on women's issues -- which I think is a great idea -- I think there any number that might have broader impact. Of course that would mean actually engaging powerful partisans rather than the marginal people in the sex trade.
Posted by: Sir Charles | April 01, 2012 at 08:01 PM
becky,
I also think his columns have a whiff of the old "white slavery" hysteria of the 50s.
I may be wrong and the problem might me more widespread than I think. But I would like to see more column space devoted to female poverty, the unbelievable attacks on reproductive rights that are sweeping the nation, and the degree to which the Republican Party is attacking the most fundamental rights of women. It is a scandal how many places in the country a woman cannot get an abortion in anymore -- and even where she can, the degrading hoops through which she must jump.
I think that taking on Republicans though takes more guts than taking on pimps.
Posted by: Sir Charles | April 01, 2012 at 08:05 PM
Podhoretz makes me want to spit. I'd not put the family connection together before. Of course -- the legacy Cons. These people aren't conservative -- they are emboldened Randians, pure and simple.
From the Financial Times, not exactly an outlier -- America's Dream Unravels .
Btw. Without having been able to extend our health care insurance to our twenty-something, his Level 1 trauma-care accident would have dealt a serious blow to this household. And we are reasonably well-equipped to absorb some financial stress. Podhoretz finds all this abstraction amusing and twitter-worthy. Fugh him.
Posted by: nancy | April 01, 2012 at 09:29 PM
Sir C-
Thanks for the clarification. I agree that sec trafficking pales in importance in this country compared to the other issues you mention. I was thinking of Kristof's work in Africa and Asia where it's a huge problem.
I didn't see you comment on the other issue I raised?
Posted by: beckya57 | April 01, 2012 at 09:40 PM
Those of us with legal expertise have generally been most optimistic about the law's prospects because we understand that ample precedent strongly suggests that the law falls comfortably within mainstream commerce clause jurisprudence.
Sir Charles:
Have you read Bmaz's latest re: the Supremes and the ACA? While he was optimistic, he wasn't as much as you or others. I'm no legal scholar, but I always thought that if the ACA were upheld, it would be a 5-4 decision. I still don't understand why Roberts would ever go along with upholding the ACA. Think about what would happen if Roberts votes to uphold? Do you really think he wasn't to get ambushed like BillO the Clown's minions(or Breitfart's, for that matter) have done to people like KO or Bill Moyers?
Posted by: Phil Perspective | April 01, 2012 at 09:50 PM
becky,
I agree with both you and Joel about the nature of the right. And I concur that we need to continually drive home the radical nature of their agenda.
I was mostly commenting on style rather than substance.
I truly think there is nothing conservative about these people.
Posted by: Sir Charles | April 01, 2012 at 09:58 PM
Phil,
I don't think Roberts fears getting ambushed. I think that if Bill O. or any of the other mouth breathers did something like that they would have real troubles on their hands. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is not really someone with whom to fuck.
Roberts is an interesting case -- he's a committed right winger but he's a lot subtler than Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. I think he cares about his reputation in elite legal circles at least a little bit. So I would not be surprised that if there is a 5-4 majority to uphold the law that he might join in and make it 6-3 and write the opinion himself. Both statesmanlike and allowing himself to control the breadth of precedent.
But that means it is all riding on Kennedy. Roberts certainly won't be the fifth vote on the case.
Posted by: Sir Charles | April 01, 2012 at 10:19 PM
Speaking of the Grey Lady, I was all ready to pay for a digital subscription, until I found out what they were charging on this go-around.
The last time they went to a paywall, I think they charged $49.95 for a year's unlimited access, and I eventually decided it was worth ponying up. (Of course, halfway through the year I paid for, they dropped the paywall, not that they offered any refunds or anything.) Now they're charging $3.75 per week, which works out to $195 a year, and no discount if you pay for a full year either.
Sorry, New York Times, but your paper just isn't worth $200 a year to me. If you're relying on a bunch of $200/year digital subscribers to keep it going, my bet is that you'll get the movers and shakers - mostly people who can get an employer, or their law or lobbying firm, to pick up the tab - but not many of the rest of us.
But just to get a more objective benchmark in here, it would cost $1.59 per week, or $83/year, to get a dead-trees Washington Post delivered to my exurban door, if I chose to do that.
Hell, if I could find someone in NYC who wouldn't mind a free dead-trees subscription, I could buy them that subscription for $3.25 a week - still too expensive at $169/year, but less than the cost of a digital subscription - and I'd get the digital subscription for free with the dead-trees subscription.
So I'm trying to figure out by what yardstick their $200/year digital subscription makes any sense, and coming up short. Apparently I can still mostly get Krugman's and Nate Silver's blogs for free, and that's all I really want anyway. But I'd pay their old $50/year rate if that was an option.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | April 02, 2012 at 09:02 AM
l-t c,
I am so old-fashioned that I still get the dead tree versions of both the Times and the Post delivered to my door. One gets the sense though that almost no one under 40 does this anymore.
You would think that this kind of thing might make the reporters and columnists more sensitive to the insecurity brought about by "creative destruction" but I sure don't see a lot of signs of this.
Posted by: Sir Charles | April 02, 2012 at 09:32 AM
They have only released teaser results so far from the latest USA Today-Gallup Swing States Poll, but it won't surprise anyone here to find out that most American women are smart enough to notice when one political party is waging a war against them.
The topline: in the 12 swing states*, Obama leads Romney by 51-42. That's outside the margin of error**, incidentally.
But the big earthquake is this:
"More than 6 in 10" - they don't give the actual percentage, but 'more' would mean at least 61%. So Obama's leading Romney by at least 61-30 among women under 50 in the 12 swing states.
A political party simply can't win nationally if it loses blacks, Hispanics, and women under 50 the way the GOP is doing.
Obama's edge among women overall in the 12 swing states is +18, which means that his edge among women 50 and over is down in the single digits somewhere. (I'm not sure what the ratio is between voters 18-49 and 50+.)
Among men over 50, Romney has a 56-38 advantage in the swing states. But among men overall, Romney only leads by 1%. And that gets us to another pretty impressive earthquake:
This means Obama is killing Romney among men under 50 in the swing states. Not by nearly as much as among women under 50, but at least in the double digits.
If the GOP loses men under 50, then it's game over for them. White men are their core constituency, and if they can't carry white men by a big enough margin to offset their losses among black and Hispanic men, then they barely have a core constituency.
Well, they do: it's white men over 50. But not only can't you win just with the "get off my lawn" vote, the Seniors Wildly Indignant about Nearly Everything, but every year, more of those old people will die off, and be replaced in the 50+ demographic by the younger people who want nothing to do with what they're selling.
The GOP's war on women may be the thing that finally kills them.
Now, how can we get organized to take full advantage of this counterreaction? Some group needs to organize a charge to reverse all these crazy laws against contraception, or killing funding for family planning, or placing onerous and absurd restrictions on the right to have an abortion, nationwide. People who are organized are always more effective than people who aren't.
*The swing states in this poll are Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.
**Wonk stuff ahead: the stated MOE of this poll is 4%, but that's the MOE of each individual estimate, not the MOE of the difference. If two estimates are independent, there's a Pythagorean relationship between the MOEs of the estimates, and the MOE of the difference between them, i.e. if a and b are the individual MOEs and c is the MOE of the difference, then a^2 + b^2 = c^2. But if they're dependent, then that rule goes out the window. And in a situation like this, where there the undecided/other share is down in the white noise, so an increase in one candidate's support comes from the other candidate's support, the MOE of the difference is basically double the stated MOE. So a poll with a 4% MOE really has to show an 8% or greater difference for that difference to be statistically significant - a high bar in a fairly closely divided country. But one that we've managed to clear.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | April 02, 2012 at 10:22 AM
l-t c,
I don't really understand the GOP approach to the electorate. It seems designed to alienate virtually everyone except that older white male core vote.
And I would think it bodes especially poorly another six to ten years down the road.
It's fascinating. You've just never seen a party go out of its way to turn off voters based on pure ideology -- at least not since the Civil War. But pragmatism has clearly left the station and the GOP ain't on board.
Posted by: Sir Charles | April 02, 2012 at 10:59 AM
(Or to put it more accurately, I think, one that the GOP in its extremism has managed to create.)
Posted by: oddjob | April 02, 2012 at 11:00 AM
Their war on women is hurting the GOP downballot, too.
Posted by: oddjob | April 02, 2012 at 11:21 AM
All good news, SC, OJ and l-tc. It's about time women started waking up,if not for themselves then for their daughters and granddaughters.
This, from "Son of Beware of sluts," birdsonawireblog.com, is making the rounds through the twittersphere, if not the blogosphere:
It’s up to women to use the strength in numbers that has fallen into their laps, combined with the rights and privileges inherited from the hard work of women who came before. It was never more true than it is today: Women must take care of women, ALL women.
Let’s not slip, no matter what our religion, our race, our politics. Let’s promise we will not elect people to office or go along with the appointment of leaders who do not respect our fundamental rights as human beings and as women.
Personally, I have no use for a candidate who is from the party I usually vote for, who is on the same page with me regarding foreign affairs and economic issues, but wants to forbid me from making decisions about how I use this body I was born into! What could be more fundamental than the right to control one's own body?
Bottom line: Women voters must come together as women on the issue of birth control and health care issues related to femaleness. Race, religion, ethnicity, geographic region, economic class, occupation, marital status: None of that matters when it comes to issues regarding how an individual woman moves her own cells through life’s maze. Our bodies and our choice of life paths come first; all the rest is secondary.
Posted by: Paula B | April 02, 2012 at 11:29 AM
SC - I was one of the skeptics when Ruy Teixeira was pushing his Emerging Democratic Majority thesis. The problem, of course, is that as smaller minorities become large minorities, they stop being discriminated against, start mainstreaming, and become part of the majority culture. Catholics were once a solidly Democratic bloc, for instance, but as they mainstreamed, the political differences between Catholics and Protestants diminished. So as the ethnic groups that form your basis of support grow, their alliance with the Democratic Party weakens, and you find yourself in the same place.
But what's happening now isn't gradual demographic change - it's a fairly sudden attack on multiple demographic groups: Hispanics, women, and young people, along with reinforcement of its long-term hostility towards blacks and gays. Maybe someone should write a book titled, "The Overnight Democratic Majority." Because that's practically what it is.
I've long said that it's very difficult to get rid of one of the two major political parties, because people who don't like one party have only one viable alternative. But the GOP sure seems to be painting themselves into a corner.
Not that I have a problem with that. If I knew how, I'd be securing them an unlimited supply of more paint and brushes.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | April 02, 2012 at 12:12 PM
Just wanted to say that I agree with Paula. The way anyone gets attention paid to issues he/she cares about is to make it clear that they have to work for your votes and money. Spending less time worrying about the "problems" our leaders have (boo hoo!) and making them worry about ours seems like the right way to go.
Posted by: scott | April 02, 2012 at 12:36 PM
You've just never seen a party go out of its way to turn off voters based on pure ideology
But it happens sometimes, especially at the end of a particularly successful run for a long-term political agenda. As the true believers continue to enforce ideological purity, to the point that pragmatists no longer can stand to be around them, the party gets fewer votes and becomes yet more rigidly ideological as the remaining members become fewer and purer in their adherence to the "true faith" (now in its ending phase as a paradigm, although the true believers can't yet see that).
I think between that and the fact that resentment is no small part of today's American right wing paradigm ("conservative" isn't really a good name for it, as Sir C. & others here have rightly noted; it's too fanatical to be aptly described by the adjective "conservative"), it isn't really surprising to see the agenda's remnants collectively expressed as a middle finger salute to all those who disagree.
(Scalia's been doing that from the bench for some decades now.)
Posted by: oddjob | April 02, 2012 at 12:38 PM
Thanks, Scott. It just so happens there's an upset in the demographics right now, with 6 million more adult women in the US than men. Women also outnumber men in the workplace and at the polls. So, what's stopping them? I guess no one in the GOP bothers to read the the periodic updates on the most recent US Census or Time magazine. Oh well!
Posted by: Paula B | April 02, 2012 at 01:05 PM
A long but interesting read:
Posted by: oddjob | April 02, 2012 at 01:40 PM
Scott,
I wonder though if there is really any parallel in American history with what is going on with the GOP right now? American political parties have been historically large coalitions with a great deal of regional variation. Over the last two decades you have seen a move toward much more parliamentary like parties with a great deal of ideological coherence and a lot less regional variation. This has kicked into overdrive in the last decade to the point where you now have Republicans in places like Ohio and Wisconsin attempting to govern like they were in some sort of deep Southern states -- with what I think will prove to be disastrous results for their party.
The Republican allegiance to ideology has really become more and more profound to the point where they aren't just denouncing federal spending (and then increasing it) but actually looking to dismantle a program like Medicare, which continues to enjoy broad public support.
Additionally, there is a kind of census be damned attitude that is remarkable. They seem to think that they can use voter suppression strategies to overcome this, but I think even the most aggressive proponent of this approach has to realize it is not a good long term strategy. Throw into the mix extremist legislation that goes over very poorly with a pretty big segment of the biggest single segment of the electorate, white women, and then alienate young voters with your extraordinarily backward views on gays and other matters cultural and you really create some pretty huge long term problems.
(It is interesting to note that Asians are actually the faster growing minority segment in the U.S. -- even more so than Hispanics, albeit in much smaller numbers -- and they too are voting against Republicans on a nearly two to one basis. So the Republicans are going to be at a profound disadvantage with Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians, probably losing about 70-75% of the vote among these groups who will likely constitute a third of the electorate in the near future.)
The Party's reaction -- well let's piss off young white people too.
Posted by: Sir Charles | April 02, 2012 at 02:11 PM
i wish i felt more comfortable about the demographics. there are obviously "ladies against women" out there, though -- and i never thought i'd see real efforts to restrict birth control, or other crap against that has been prominent in recent months.
have to take comfort in the fact that even a lot of women who identify as "conservative" do believe in birth control and their personal medical autonomy. they believe in women working outside the home, because that is how they have supported their families. they believe in health care, because they and their families have needed it. we need to do all possible to ensure those women are persuaded by those specific interests, rather than what some call the "ooga booga" message from those neanderthals.
oddjob -- i hadn't really understood the role the feds played in making air travel workable at least in major population areas. had noticed that it is important to be near a hub/major airport, should one want to get from here to there without spending enormous amounts.
Posted by: kathy a. | April 02, 2012 at 02:28 PM
This is really weird: I seem to be the only person out there who's noticed the bit about Obama shellacking Romney among men under 50.
Yeah, sure, they didn't come out and say it, but how do you miss it if you do even a cursory look at the numbers they do provide?
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | April 02, 2012 at 02:40 PM
you now have Republicans in places like Ohio and Wisconsin attempting to govern like they were in some sort of deep Southern states
I don't know about Wisconsin, but I've heard anecdotally that over the last three decades Ohio, especially southern Ohio, has become much more like Kentucky (i.e. far more evangelical Christians present) than it ever used to be. That goes hand in hand with Republicans governing as in Dixie.
Posted by: oddjob | April 02, 2012 at 02:50 PM
l-t c,
See my last line -- I kind of ran out of steam, but yes, they have also decided to piss off young men -- sadly I don't even fall within the liberal under 50 rule to fall into this category.
oddjob,
Yeah, southern Ohio is like that, but I don't think that is representative of the state, whose overall demographics tend to mirror those of the U.S. generally. This may explain in part why Kasich got his ass handed to him in the union referrendum.
Posted by: Sir Charles | April 02, 2012 at 03:08 PM
But it does show up in Columbus. Ohio State's natural history museum used to reference "Evolution" in its title, but is now known as the "Museum of Biological Diversity".
Posted by: oddjob | April 02, 2012 at 03:21 PM
LTC, Catholics tended to vote reliably Democratic and reliably economically liberal for nearly a century (really 1875-1970). So to say demographics don't matter is problematic. Demographic group loyalties can change over the course of decades, but it really does take that long. It took nearly 50 years for Southern Whites to abandon the Democratic Party completely after civil rights. So right now, Democrats really do have the ability to create a 50 year coalition- and the conservatives know it.
Posted by: Joe S | April 02, 2012 at 04:50 PM
oddjob -- Thanks for the sad piece about deregulation -- that law of unintended consequences again. Once more, we're reminded of how this country needs high-speed rail as well. Southwest recently reduced routes we fly with some frequency to where getting to Seattle or Salt Lake City have become time-consuming hop, hops. In the Mountain West we suffer at both ends of the formula with too few flights and now higher fares to midwest destinations where many of us have family.
I don't know about Wisconsin, but I've heard anecdotally that over the last three decades Ohio, especially southern Ohio, has become much more like Kentucky (i.e. far more evangelical Christians present) than it ever used to be. That goes hand in hand with Republicans governing as in Dixie.
Having grown up and gone on to school in southern Ohio, I'd say you're right. Oddly enough some of what you report resulted from the outward migration of college graduates after the Kent State shootings, where the message telegraphed at the time was alarmingly anti-youth, pro-'silent majority' and 'love it or leave it.' So we did, in droves, landing on the coasts and in friendlier urban enclaves. My unscientific tracking leads me to think many more than half of my classmates headed out permanently.
Posted by: nancy | April 02, 2012 at 06:46 PM
Bill, probably the man for the job, weighs in today on stand your ground legislations and asks for a reappraisal.
Guardian: "Since the measure was passed into law by then Florida governor Jeb Bush in 2005 it has been cited in at least 140 cases, according to the Tampa Bay Times. It removed a citizen's duty to retreat from a situation in which he or she perceived their life or safety to be in jeopardy and allowed instead for use of deadly force.
Posted by: nancy | April 02, 2012 at 08:59 PM
Jon Chait had an interesting article recently about the GOP's mad press for unpopular policies. His view was that they know that they're about to become a minority party for a good long while, and see right now as their last chance to undo the New Deal, bust unions, push women back into the home and gays back into the closet, etc. Makes a certain amount of sense when you think about it.
Posted by: beckya57 | April 02, 2012 at 09:08 PM
i dunno, becky. i think they see it as a holy war, and that they have gotten so breathtakingly stupid and horrible because they think they can get away with it. the president is of color, you know. socialism, feminism, atheism, multiculturalism, the undeserving, taxes, ooga booga. they believe they will win, especially with those big unaccountable bucks behind them.
Posted by: kathy a. | April 02, 2012 at 09:17 PM
nancy -- bill probably is the guy for the job. this is just common sense. nobody but the worst kind of wingnuts thinks that arming everybody, concealed, is the answer. nobody who lives in the actual world, i think.
Posted by: kathy a. | April 02, 2012 at 09:20 PM
i'm in a bad mood on the gun issue generally, though. i hate them. somebody went and killed at least 7 people at a christian college today, about 10 miles from me.
Posted by: kathy a. | April 02, 2012 at 09:23 PM
kathy, I think you're talking more about the rank and file, and Chait was talking more about the party leadership and the big money folks. Obama's being black is just a tool for them; if he was white they would just find something else. Being white and Southern sure didn't protect Bill Clinton.
Posted by: beckya57 | April 02, 2012 at 10:10 PM
Becky---I wonder if things would have been different for Clinton without the "uppity" wife? Probably not. Even with the single mom thing and all, they would have called him an elitist for being a Rhodes Scholar.
Sorry that shooting was so close to you, kathy.
Posted by: paula b | April 02, 2012 at 10:33 PM
i really fucking hate guns.
becky, you're probably right about this being what appeals to rank & file, with most of the movers and shakers just using divisive issues to scare the bejeepers out of the voters they count on -- on a visceral level. lord knows they don't want voters considering things rationally.
Posted by: kathy a. | April 02, 2012 at 10:59 PM
I hate guns too.
I don't think things would have been different for Clinton without Hillary--again, they just would have found something else. Any Democratic president is illegitimate and should be subjected to a no-holds-barred attack in the contemporary right's view. The choice of tactics varies depending on the officeholder, but not the goal. Kerry would have experienced this too if he had been elected, as will every succeeding Dem president until this version of the GOP changes or dies out.
Posted by: beckya57 | April 02, 2012 at 11:16 PM
closing the circle, maybe ...
I share Charles's concern about rhetorical tone, but my Overton window apparently overlooks a meadow somewhat to the left of his.
So I toyed with jokes about the proper description of the Court's right-ideologues being "running-dog lackeys of the bourgeoisie", but ultimately thought better of it.
Posted by: joel hanes | April 03, 2012 at 12:21 AM
open thread: NYT editorial about a judicial ruling requiring groups (like the chamber of commerce) to disclose political donors.
Posted by: kathy a. | April 03, 2012 at 10:58 AM
Kerry would have experienced this too if he had been elected
Oh, that's a given! Furthermore his wife's not shy about publicly expressing her opinions, either, so all the "uppity wife" stuff would have come around for her, too. Michelle negotiates that mess far better than Theresa would have.
Posted by: oddjob | April 03, 2012 at 12:19 PM
joel,
Ha! They are capitalist roaders who will be shown to be paper tigers.
Posted by: Sir Charles | April 03, 2012 at 02:16 PM
Tomorrow the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit will hear an appeal of Judge Tauro's ruling that struck down a key portion of the Defense of Marriage Act that has barred the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.
Posted by: oddjob | April 03, 2012 at 02:38 PM
Open for business again? Cranky captcha!
Posted by: nancy | April 03, 2012 at 06:16 PM
nancy,
I believe it is back in action.
Posted by: Sir Charles | April 03, 2012 at 11:38 PM
Ah, it looks like we've got a new captcha system. Can't say that I like it much.
Posted by: Sir Charles | April 03, 2012 at 11:40 PM