I am trying this from an iPhone for the first time. Sitting in Fenway Park for the first time in twelve years on an absolutely beautiful day here. Will be heading off to reunion festivities after, so should be a festive day all in all.
I am going to try to post a picture if I can figure out how.
Go Sox!
Posted by: Paula B | June 09, 2012 at 07:33 PM
Leave it to a lawyer! Three games (six?) where, whoever wins, it's your 'home town team' and you manage to get to one.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | June 09, 2012 at 07:35 PM
SC, i went to a braves game when i was in atlanta last week. the braves still have an organist. at one point the organist played a snippet of "blister in the sun"
Posted by: big bad wolf | June 09, 2012 at 08:20 PM
Did anyone read the Watergate Revisited story in tomorrow's Wash Post Outlook section? It's been up since yesterday afternoon.
Oh, and Nancy, how's the kitchen remodeling coming along? Any decisions yet? I found making choices to be the hardest part of the job. Once I had options, I couldn't make up my mind.
Posted by: Paula B | June 09, 2012 at 08:44 PM
Paula -- My kitchen remodel? Since you asked...Ugh. Granite or marble? Slate or soapstone? Drop in sink? Cabinet hardware? Ugh again. Lived through this, twenty years ago. Not sure this kind of effort and expense makes the slightest bit of sense, but I'm outvoted. At heart I'm frugal, spartan and content with my abundant current blessings. But our Arts and Crafts home, built in 1912 or so, probably demands our attention and respect. Besides, it's an inheritance for the new 'lost generation' family member and favorite son. Who knows where this generation will eventually land.
So -- Go Mariners. :-) Well Sox too. And Sir C -- have a blast!
Posted by: nancy | June 09, 2012 at 10:59 PM
Lets not talk about baseball. I live in San Diego.
Posted by: Bill H | June 10, 2012 at 01:15 AM
Nancy, Granite or marble, slate or soapstone? Slate, it is non-porous and nealy impermeiable. Granite would be my second choice but it has inter-crystalline pathways for moisture and pathogens to accumulate. Marble is soluable in some circumstances. Soapstone?
Spartan is sensical, I can go with that.
I am looking around for this Watergate revisited thing, also under the name of something like it was much worse than we thought. Haven't found it yet.
I am still awed by what a young buck SC is if his picture is any indication.
I am back from my foray to Forteleza and I must confess it was not entirely what I expected. It seems that I am a bit late to the game. IOW a lot of expats there already and the market shall we say has been tainted a bit. I don't think I will change my mind over this unless it becomes impossible to find alternatives.
I don't know from baseball, and am not a fan of any team. Getting paid big bucks to play a game just seems incongrous.
SC - I did time in Boston. It was interesting. I wouldn't choose to spend time there again. But I lived in Lincoln,
Cambridge and Beacon Hill. Perhaps I missed something.
Oddly, I have recently gotten the idea that it might be interesting to find a place to live that is smack dab on the equator. Philosophically it has its merits.
Posted by: KN | June 10, 2012 at 01:37 AM
KN, there are sealers that can be used on both granite and marble that make it highly suitable for countertops. Check them out, because both are lovely materials and I would hate for you to rule them out unnecessarily.
Posted by: Bill H | June 10, 2012 at 09:38 AM
Nancy,
If I were remodeling today, I would choose the slate. It shouldn't require any upkeep at all(right KN?)unless it chips a little. Part of our horrific remodeling "accident" involved the installation of rectangular granite tiles over an old formica countertop and backsplash. Pieces of granite were much less expensive than a slab and the end product is quite attractive, but as Bill said, we seal it at least once a year to keep the surface and grout stain- and pathogen-resistant. Sealing is an awful job. Considering what's mostly likely in the sealant, this maintenance could very well shorten our lives a bit, but at least we'll die with gleaming and sanitary floors, coutertops and backsplashes.
Life is full of tough choices. And, if you two can make these choices together without one of you filing for divorce, you're way ahead of the game. Good luck!
KN--your advice on materials does not come lightly, so thanks for weighing in. This one's for you: http://wapo.st/LIyQa5
We always knew Nixon was exactly what he really was, didn't we? Brazil sounds like a great choice to me. Keep the lights on, will you?
In 1971 or early 1972, I worked for DCPS in the Presidential Building at 11th and Pennsylvania. There had been an anti-war march earlier in the day when this particular event happened, but around 3 or 4 in the afternoon, then-Supt. Hugh Scott and I were in an office overlooking Pennsylvania Avenue, staring out the window talking about the demonstration, and how it had fizzled after all the hype of the previous week. Scott pointed out that John Mitchel and Haldeman were standing on the balcony of Justice, looking out over the street at 9th. It was late in the day and most of the demonstrators had dispersed to other parts of the city. At the time, only three young people were left walking down the street near our building. They weren't carrying signs or anything. We could hear them laugh as they ambled their way west along the sidewalk on the north side. Scott and I were several stories up but had the window open, so we could hear them, a little bit. Neither of us noticed anything odd about what they were doing. Suddenly, a white, unmarked van with a rear door (the kind of vehicle house painters and police use) pulled up alongside the kids and stopped, in a traffic lane. Four men in white jumpsuits got out of the truck--the driver, passenger and two guys came out from the back door. We saw no printing on the truck or the uniforms. We didn't see any badges shown, or hear any words spoken by the men when they rushed the kids, picked them up and dragged them, kicking and screaming, to the van. The three were thrown in the back like sacks of mail, then all the uniformed guys jumped back in and took off, making a U-turn in the middle of the block. They headed east on Penn, toward the Capitol.
Scott and I were dumbfounded. Both said it looked like a kidnapping. Probably by some sort of police, but without Mirandizing. We talked briefly about what to do, but then saw Mitchell and Haldeman recede back into the building from the balcony. At that, we let it go. I felt like there was no one to tell.
This was not an isolated incident -- as today's story proves -- and it happened well before Watergate. I saw similar probable-crimes several times during Nixon's administration and learned of others from people whose judgment I trusted and still trust.
Posted by: Paula B | June 10, 2012 at 03:44 PM
I was going to -- and may -- comment about Nixon and his career and crimes and incredible luck in being in the 'right place at the right time' so often. But in thinking about Nixon I found myself asking a new question, one I don't think I've ever asked before, and I'd like to hear your comments on this.
After 1928, the Northern Democracy became the 'party of civil rights' and controlled the nominations so that, for the most part, even the Southerners on the tickets (Barkley, Garner) were not thought of primarily for their opposition to civil rights -- with one exception. The VP Candidate in 1952 was John Sparkman of Alabama, a signer of the Southern Manifesto and an outright segregationist.
Stevenson was, on the other hand, a liberal in all areas, including civil rights, and, admittedly, the VP only became 'new style' with, in fact, Nixon. The 'bucket of warm piss' was true as late as Barkley.
So, what would have happened if Brown came down during a Stevenson-Sparkman Administration? Would Stevenson have gone with the North? Would Sparkman -- figuring his career was over with his VPship have agreed, stayed silent, or created a serious war with his President -- remember that the South still supplied the majority of Congressmen and electoral votes for the Democrats in most election?
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | June 10, 2012 at 05:21 PM
On a completely different topic -- look away, Bill H. -- had you seen the Nats before at home, Sir C., or was this the first chance you've had to see this year's version? I've been expecting them to take the NL East for a while, and Em pointed me towards Clippard, and the guy seems a major talent to go with the rest. In fact, it's not out of the question to imagine a Wash-Baltimore series - and who would have thought that any time -- I was going to say 'recently' but I don't think there's ever been a year when both cities had teams and they were both even barely in contention.
And anybody have any feeling about the 'both leagues at fifteen teams, interleague games every night' plan for next year? I'm a little dubious, to put it mildly.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | June 10, 2012 at 06:05 PM
Re: smack dab on the equator. Philosophically it has its merits.
Like 12 and 12? Won't that get boring? Forteleza must be pretty close to 0˚.
Posted by: Paula B | June 10, 2012 at 07:01 PM
Dereliction of duty. Happy Father's Day to Cogblog dads -- I know there are some. Husband, partner, dad, son, brother or friend, here's to all guyhood. Except for the jerks of course. :-)
Posted by: nancy | June 10, 2012 at 07:29 PM
omigod, did i get the date for father's day wrong? i thought it was next sunday. here's to guyhood, anyway.
Posted by: Paula B | June 10, 2012 at 08:00 PM
I'm just tossing stuff out, some of which might be of interest to somebody, But I was thinking of the Fifties, and was wondering if there was ever a decade before or since where at least three of the most powerful 'political' figures -- those who were politically influential, if not necessarily elected or appointed officials -- were (closeted) gay men, and all three were malign influences. I'm thinking of Francis Cardinal Spellman, Joe McCarthy, and J. Edgar Hoover.
The only equivalent might be the 1850s, where two -- and some would argue three -- winning National tickets included a gay man. I find no reason to question that James Buchanan (President, 1856) and William R. King (VP, 1852 -- but was sworn in in Cuba abd died before he could return to the states, serving only 45 days) were lovers. The Lincoln story is, at best an open question. (And I've wondered about the life-long bachelor known for having young proteges, Thaddeus Stevens -- in much the way I've wondered about Sam Rayburn.)
Another powerful 1950s figure that was -- according to at least one admittedly dubious source, Seymour Freidin's A SENSE OF THE SENATE -- a magnigicently waspish 'revenge book' from someone fired from his position (doorkeeper? parliamentarian?) in the Senate after a breakdown -- bisexual was Lyndon Johnson. (Of course Freidin has half the Senate as rumored gay or bi including Nixon, but somehow the idea that "Johnson didn't care what he stuck the Presidential Tool into' sounds more believable than the others.)
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | June 10, 2012 at 08:05 PM
Paula, you got it right, and thank you for the slight heart palpitation you gave me, nancy. (I haven't wanted to discuss this yet, so I'll just say that it seems likely that this will be the last Father's Day card Em will be sending, and even then it has a slight chance of being too late. But there is no way we could permit ourselves to miss this one, even with the somewhat ambiguous relationship we have with him.)
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | June 10, 2012 at 08:09 PM
Oh no. I got it wrong!! Well better early than late. I knew I hadn't seen much advert, but then Father's Day always gets short shrifted. So my intentions were good. Ay. So sorry for my confusion. :-(
Posted by: nancy | June 10, 2012 at 08:27 PM
Prup -- I really apologize for that heart palpitation I caused you. Best to you and Em.
I should just go back to looking at kitchen materials for the time being I guess. Head. Desk.
Posted by: nancy | June 10, 2012 at 08:41 PM
ok, whew. next week. i usually nudge the offspring a little. their dad's gone until the big day, anyway, but good to have a little head's up.
Posted by: kathy a. | June 10, 2012 at 10:05 PM
Gee, I was hoping someone else would have a Nixon-I-am-a-crook story. Guess not many of you lived in DC at the time. I bet the W&B story in yesterday's Post shakes a lot of tales out of the trees.
Posted by: Paula B | June 10, 2012 at 10:20 PM
I'm putting all this stuff up because we're coming up on the 40th anniversary of Watergate and I think it's lot more important to think about how that event, along with the fact of having a low-life thug in the White House, affected this country, the presidency right up to this election. To me, that's more important than speculating on what might have happened if things had been different. They were what they were. And, now we have even more proof they were as bad as many of us thought at the time. I had a friend in Labor--a high-ranking policy analyst and co-founder of the DOL unit of the federal employees union--who was burglarized, sabotaged and almost professionally and emotionally destroyed by Nixon, but went to his grave without proof. Yesterday's story would have been all he needed to know. RIP, my friend, you were right the first time.
Posted by: Paula B | June 10, 2012 at 10:30 PM
I like real estate blogs. I don't know, maybe it's just the one form of snark I appreciate.
Anyhow, today http://www.burbed.com/2012/06/10/round-up-the-usual-suspects/ came up with Movoto's very stereotyped, and somewhat misogynistic take on their
customersvictims.Of course, the article takes a survey result and then creates a fantasy which bears little resemblance to the evidence (what little they give). Women are either self-serving or child obsessed, of course.
Posted by: Crissa | June 10, 2012 at 11:59 PM
KN---previous thread is closed, so I'll respond to your last post, here. Now I know why I like you so much. Few men in this world have the intrinsic empathy for women that you have. In very broad strokes, no matter what the culture, women usually endure a level of abuse -- subtle or horrific -- that men will never experience outside of war. Their strength comes from a lifetime of fending off threats and learning to navigate as an alien in a world they didn't build. I think the threats are worse in childhood and adolescence. By 40, a survivor can live out the rest of her life knowing she probably can handle whatever comes along. And, that's the strength that scares the bejesus out of men, don't you think?
Crissa---This note to KN oddly connects to your post, too. I think the best way to undermine mature women is to undermine their strength through humiliation. Men seem to know that instinctively.
Posted by: Paula B | June 11, 2012 at 07:46 AM
bbw,
The Blister in the Sun phenomenon makes me laugh. It is also used in some major television commercial at the moment. It is something I couldn't really have foreseen back in 1985 seeing the Femmes give an absolutely riotous midnight show at a small club here.
The other song being used as a commercial jingle that cracks me up is "If I should Fall from Grace with God" by the Pogues, which is used on some heartwarming Subaru commercial. Very, very odd.
The musical highlights at Fenway were walking in to the stadium and hearing Public Enemy blasting -- something I never expected to hear at Fenway of all places. Tom Yawkey's spinning in his grave I'm sure.
The organist treated us to "And She Was" by Talking Heads as his/her most outre offering of the day.
Posted by: Sir Charles | June 11, 2012 at 09:34 AM
In light of earlier comments about fake pot at a concert, I noticed this story on my way to the train this morning.
Posted by: oddjob | June 11, 2012 at 09:46 AM
Jim,
I've only been to a couple of Nats' games here in DC, but I think that that might change as I see how good the team has become. Their pitching is really top of the line.
The ball park is nice too. I have more faith in the Nats remaining competitive over the long haul than the Orioles. God the damage that Peter Angelos has done to that once proud franchise. Never put a lawyer in charge of anything might be a good credo.
Do you think McCarthy was gay? I never had that impression, although he had acolytes like Roy Cohn who certainly were.
KN,
I am all of 52 and some days I feel it. I've kept my hair and it does not have a lot of gray, so it gives me the illusion of looking young. But trust me, one of my friends brought several books of photos from our time in college to the reunion and they made me feel old. I look like a baby in those pictures -- I asked her to scan a couple and if she can I'll post one. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at my lost youth.
Boston has changed considerably over the thirty years since I moved away. It's much less provincial and much less working class in nature. The city is quite attractive these days and has undergone massive gentrification. One of the things that has made it so different I think is the tremendous growth of mutual fund money managed in the city. About 25% of all mutual fund money in American is managed in Boston, which has really sparked growth in a kind of monied class that used to be reserved to the genteel WASP set. A huge amount of the economy of the city is devoted to the financial industry, health care, and education. The old manufacturing and port-based aspects of the city have really faded, while places like Boston and Northeastern Universities and Mass General Hospital have grown by leaps and bounds.
Lincoln, as I recall, was more like a large club than a town.
nancy,
I have granite countertops that I quite like and that have held up well (despite not sealing), but my sense is that Quartz is the new thing. Evidently it holds up really really well and gives that nice natural stone look.
The other thing though that I am seeing in the cutting edge Euro-style kitchen places here are a lot of composite materials that are lighter and hold up well under heavy use. In fact, it seems that in these places, the natural stone look is considered passe.
Paula,
I was ages 8-14 when Nixon was in office, so I have no first hand observations of his evil, although I would submit that those who try to redeem him based on the relative moderation of his policy positions are really missing out on what an evil son of a bitch the guy was. An ugly, ugly little man at heart.
Posted by: Sir Charles | June 11, 2012 at 10:02 AM
Jim,
With respect to Sparkman and Brown v. the Board, I assume he would have either fallen in line with Stevenson or kept his mouth shut. That was definitely in the age in which Veeps were seen and not heard.
That was also the last conceivable point at which a segregationist could have gotten on a national ticket for the Democrats. It's actually pretty surprising to me that it happened at all in the post 1948 environment.
Posted by: Sir Charles | June 11, 2012 at 10:09 AM
I've always been fond of the Oz books, at least the originals by Baum. People who jusy know the movie don't appreciate the wry comments in the books, mostly directed against preachers and pompous asses. But one scene from both book -- I think, been a while -- and movie is always relevant, when Toto pulls down the curtain and you see that "Oz the Great and Powerful" is just a man using tricks to retain his power. Now Oz was 'a good man, just not a very good wizard' but some of our "Great and Powerfuls" are neither, like the Koch Brothers.
We've spent a lot of time making them into 'fabulous monsters' -- to pick another kidlit echo -- but sometimes it's good to pull the curtain down on them.
AZBlueMeanie and the McClatchy Organization have both been investigating these "Great and Powerfuls" and the most recent summary is here and here. Fascinating stuff, and worth knowing about exactly how they -- and their front groups, most particularly the "Center to Protect Patient Rights," just out of Phoenix in Maricopa County -- yes, Sherrif Joe's fiefdom -- an Umbrella organization funneling money to many different groups.
The most recent piece links them, and one of the largest receivers of Koch largesse to Rick Scott's voter purge as well.
It's been a while since I cursed out the blimp-riders, but why the fuck is the only place this is being covered the Blog for Arizona. The Koch Brothers weren't drawn by Steve Ditko, they don't have mysterious mind control rays, or walk around in costumes -- but we sometimes talk as if they do. We sometimes treat them as if they were semi-mythical symbolic embodiments of our fears of an evil corporate cabal.
They are simply human beings, very evil and dangerous ones, but if we DO look behind the curtain and see the actual machinery they use, they are less frightening -- and, more important, we can see what wheels are most vulnerable to being spoked.
McClatchy has been following them and detailing them for years -- yet Googling "McClatchy Koch Brothers' shows a lot of articles but almost no blog references to the series except for one article Kos picked up on their attack on California global warming regulations.
A McClatchy subsidiary even produced a documentary called "Koch Brothers Exposed." The Wisconsin AFL-CIO seems to have heard about it and sponsored showings, even offering the DVD for sale with $5 of each purchase going to the Wisconsin Workers Defense Fund. Now maybe if a few more people had known about this, there might have been money for a few more ads, etc -- and the coverage would have been different.
But where are the TPMs, the Huffingtons, even Crooks&Liars? Where are the brilliant, sharp-pointed anger of the Digby columns? When GG and the Hamster thunder against admittedly questionable acts by Obama, why do they ignore a far greater threat to our liberties and even to our Democracy? They mention the Brothers, yes, but again, in terms that make you picture a bright-colored cover and some word balloons.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | June 11, 2012 at 10:39 AM
McCarthy never married.........
Posted by: oddjob | June 11, 2012 at 11:22 AM
A huge amount of the economy of the city is devoted to the financial industry, health care, and education.
You neglected to mention high technology and biotechnology. They also have been major drivers in the region's prosperity (including Boston but also of course Cambridge). Wang Labs is long gone, but the area's long history of innovation (Polaroid used to be here, back in the day and there were plenty of others, too) is very alive and still makes a big impact.
Posted by: oddjob | June 11, 2012 at 11:26 AM
"But where are the TPMs, the Huffingtons, even Crooks&Liars? Where are the brilliant, sharp-pointed anger of the Digby columns? When GG and the Hamster thunder against admittedly questionable acts by Obama, why do they ignore a far greater threat to our liberties and even to our Democracy?"
Jim that is not an unreasonable question, and not an easy one to answer, but I'll give it a shot because to no samll extent I am in somewhat the same camy as GG and, I guess, the Hamster although I seldom if ever read her.
I don't much challange or criticize the other side because I have no expectations of the other side. I know they are wrong, I expect wrongness of them, and I have no inclination to change them. I recognize that attempting to do so is as futile as attempting to stem the oncoming tide.
I challenge my side when I see them "straying from the path of righteousness" because I have expectations of my side. I do not expect my side to act like assholes, and when I see them doing so I am going to call them out on it; ""Hey, we are better than this." I believe that I can change my side, when I see what I believe to be error, because we are standing on the same foundation.
Sort of like my father would say to me, you know, "If I did not care about you I would not be bothering to set rules and discipline you." Same thing when I get into it with groups like this one here. I read much that is of value, so I know that at the core we are on the same foundation, and when I see what I consider blind support of what I consider to be errors of what we actually stand for, such as some of the things that Obama embraces, I will argue the point and urge that we as a democratic force (small d) demand better.
Posted by: Bill H | June 11, 2012 at 11:29 AM
Was McCarthy gay? I'd think it was highly probable, if not certain. (Unfortunately the book that makes the strongest case, including reported personal witnessing, is packed away and I can't remember which one it is.)
There is a solid-seeming article (I just don't know anything about The Gay and Lesbian Review Worldwide:A Bimonthly Journal of History, Culture and Politics so I can't unquestionably recommend it) that discusses it in ways that at no point diverges from my own memory and studies except claiming that the John Birch Society was contemporaneous with McCarthy. Apparently there were contemporary printed and public references. Quoting the article -- and I know and trust Greenspun's work in this area:
Certainly the logical probabilities make it seem likely. McCarthy's type of homosexual taunting and attacking was very much the picture -- more so then than now -- of the closet queen desperately trying to cover his own inclinations. And it wasn't that Cohn was gay but that it was Cohn's pursuit of Schine through Europe, and finally his desperate attempt to force the army to keep Schine 'available' that was the final trigger to bring McCarthy down -- it was the background of the "Army-McCarthy" hearings.
If McCarthy wasn't gay, you have to believe that he couldn't and didn't see that Cohn was, that he didn't see the sexual component in Cohn's attempts to get his 'friend' special treatment, and that, even when things were closing in, he wouldn't suddenly be 'shocked, shocked' to discover the truth about Cohn. (Of course, Cohn was an expert in blackmail, but the only weakness of McCarthy's that he did not parade openly would have been...)
Even his late in life marriage to his long-time secretary smacks of facial hair -- though to be honest, it also is reminiscent of the faithful loving secretary putting herself in position to help a boss whose alcoholism and public destruction was to kill him in a couple of years.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | June 11, 2012 at 11:32 AM
I was ages 8-14 when Nixon was in office, so I have no first hand observations of his evil
You weren't paying attention. I was. I still remember how relieved I was when the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that his contention about the White House tapes being priveleged despite it being obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense that they were evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the President was bullshit and that they had to be handed over.
That we, now that it's our turn to prosecute a criminal president almost certainly guilty of far greater crimes than Nixon was, refuse to do so is no small part of what I find so deeply troubling about present circumstances.
We must prosecute a political cover up, but if the president's a torturer then we must "move on"?
Posted by: oddjob | June 11, 2012 at 11:34 AM
Even his late in life marriage to his long-time secretary smacks of facial hair
(Oops! Forgot about that.)
Posted by: oddjob | June 11, 2012 at 11:38 AM
Jayhawk: It is becaise of your position that I have so welcomed you here, even though I like 'going at it' with you as much as with anyone. Our positions are quite similar in some ways. We both castigate the stupidity, cupidity, and brainless bludering of the Democratic Party. We both have relatively little respect for our current President -- for different reasons, for me the final breaking point was his wilingness to accept $4 Trillion in spending cuts with no revenue increases in the Hostage Negotiation. But I'd started wondering if I'd made a mistake when he failed to have a Health Care Program "ready on Day One" and when he, even though he was winning the battle and making the Republicans and Palin look foolish over 'death panels,' still retreated on end-of-life counseling.
(I think that one retreat did more to make the Tea Party viable than any other incident, or any amount of money that was poured in during the initial 'astroturfing.')
Our differences are actually 'practical.' (Or maybe I have just retained a hope that you abandoned as foolish, the chance of helping things get to a point where the Democratic Party can be steered back to its idealistic, Keynesian, Galbreathian, Civil Libertarian and Equalitarian roots.) I think you really haven't spent the time to realize what the Republican Party has become, not just in isolated places but nationally. (Ironically, California may be the least insane state party out there in some ways. They specialize in corruption, not craziness -- comparatively, that is, though they started the parade of great wingnuts in office with Schmitz and Utt.)
I really am sympathetic with the pssion of "Let things go to hell and the populace will wake up and take the government back once they suffer enough." I know how tempting it is to sing "They got the guns but we got the numbers.' only we, in fact, don't have either. Even in 1968, during the height of the Radical Youth Movement (I use that as a general term, don't know if any groupp used it as a name), it was also the first year of 18-year old voting -- and more first-time voters voted for George Wallace than for Eugene McCarthy.
There may be exceptions, but I can't think of any, and I'd appreciate being corrected on this. But as a general rule 'revolutions from sheer desperation' favor right-wing authoritarian populism -- sometimes with a veneer of left-wing rhetoric. (Mugabe, Peron, Khomeini are obvious examples even if you deny that Fascism was an authetically populist movement. And I consider Stalinism to fit the same description.)
It is only when the pressure has let up, when the revolution comes from the pressure of (previously existant or newly granted) democratic privilege does a country move authentically leftward.
On a less academic argument, there is still the extremely important point that one reason the Democratic Party establishment is so adamantly against the Left is that it views them as both untrustworthy and treacherous and futile as well. The retreat from Obama isn't going to 'wake them up' it's just going to give them more reason to dismiss us and move towards the more trustworthy center-right that will be abandoning the progressively psychotic Republicans.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | June 11, 2012 at 12:10 PM
Jim,
I can certainly imagine that McCarthy may have been a closet case, but it's not an allegation I remember seeing before, where it was pretty clear that Cohn and Schine were. Amazing what Cohn was able to get away with in the 50s.
oddjob,
I think of the high tech stuff in Massachusetts as being more of a suburban industry, although I suspect there is a fair amount in Cambridge. I was out on Rt. 128 in the western suburbs quite a bit this weekend, so I saw a lot of those companies and drove by the abandoned Polaroid offices in Waltham.
It's not that I wasn't aware of Nixon's evil as a young teen -- I remember celebrating his resignation with a bunch of my junior high classmates at the home of one our teachers -- can you imagine that today? I just didn't have the adult connection to it that Paula described.
Remember, Nixon committed his crimes in part against the Democratic opposition and high level journalists. Bush committed his against suspected al Qaeda members -- I think that explains the differences in the way those crimes were perceived.
Posted by: Sir Charles | June 11, 2012 at 12:35 PM
No, I don't subscribe to the idea of deliberately letting things get bad enough to trigger a revolution, although I suspect that we have passed the point at which nothing short of revolution will solve our problem.
What I do believe is that we have far more to gain by advocating our own principles than we do preaching fear of, or hatred for, the principles and/or actions espoused by our opponents. That course of action is part of why we are losing.
Listen to conservatives. They do bash liberals, yes, but they spend a great deal of time talking about what they stand for and policies they espouse. They do it in sound bites and in simplistic terms and to you they sound like idiots, but they are advocating/i> nonetheless. They are selling their program.
Liberals cannot even agree on what to call ourselves. Are we liberals? Progressives? What principles do we espouse? Yes, you here can iterate some things, but broadly, on the American stage not so much. Most time is spent talking about how bad the Republicans are, and even Obama spends far too much time on that subject in this year's campaign.
I don't think I have ever heard any Republican say "be afraid of Democrats," but Democrats preach the fear of Republicans constantly. When you advocate the fear of your opponent you magnify that opponent, you give them power. We should be saying that Republicans are not worth being afraid of, that they are ignorant and not worth our fear.
It used to be a fundamental principle of advertising that you never name and never directly criticize your competitor; that your ad should only advocate for your own product. That should be the basis of our own campaign, but instead we give the advantage to our opponent by saying their name more than we say our own and by telling everyone that our oppononent is so powerful that we should be terrified of them. People in this nation tend to join the winning side.
Posted by: Bill H | June 11, 2012 at 12:35 PM
I think of the high tech stuff in Massachusetts as being more of a suburban industry,
It used to be, but even then it wouldn't be there without the universities in Boston and Cambridge cranking out graduates who have no real desire to move away. The biotech industry is both suburban and urban. The Kendall Square area in particular is highly desired real estate for biotech companies. It's walking distance from MIT, a short subway ride from Harvard another short one from Mass. General Hospital, and a not especially longer one to the research hospitals over near Boston University & Northeastern.
Boston's trying to muscle in on that action, too.
Posted by: oddjob | June 11, 2012 at 01:03 PM
I saw a lot of those companies and drove by the abandoned Polaroid offices in Waltham.
Polaroid's headquarters were on Memorial Drive, no?
Posted by: oddjob | June 11, 2012 at 01:04 PM
(Can someone fix the typo?)
Posted by: oddjob | June 11, 2012 at 01:07 PM
Uh-oh, Bill H didn't close his italics tag!
One pitfall of the comment threads here, Bill, is that if someone doesn't close an italics or bold tag in a comment, then the rest of the thread is in italics or bold. There doesn't seem to be any solution to it. (We've tried including extra close-italics tags in subsequent comments, for instance, but it doesn't do shit.)
Don't feel bad, we've all made this mistake from time to time. And you had no way to know of this blog's little weakness.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | June 11, 2012 at 01:14 PM
Hold on, did my extra close-italics tag actually fix it this time?
It's never happened before; why am I seeing it now?
The Force must be strong in me today.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | June 11, 2012 at 01:19 PM
I know. I tried making an additional post with a closing italics tag and it didn't do anything so I blew off the "prove you're not a spambot" thing and figured I wouldn't hear all the bad names I got called.
Posted by: Bill H | June 11, 2012 at 01:26 PM
Oddjob: what Nixon was impeached for were 'criminal crimes' violations of the law that would have been criminal for someone in a similar position.
There was one article of impeachment -- insisted on by the more ;eft-wing and anti-war Congressmen, Fr. Drinan as a prime mover -- that would have included a 'poltical crime' -- and the "Secret Wars in Cambodia and Laos" were as conscience-shocking as were Bush's torturing -- let's not get off into arguing Obama on this one just to avoid over-complication.
But this was voted down, and he was acquitted of the charge, actually and more importantly since there was no question he'd done what was alleged, it was ruled 'not an impeachable offense.' That precedent -- which was actually the Left's only contribution to the whole Watergate story and which was hardly a positive one -- would make it difficult to have impeached Bush when he was in office, and would make it impossible to try him in an American Court. (There would also be the exceptionally difficult can of worms as Republicans claimed the Democrats were equally complicit.)
And a foreigh or international tribunal would be unthinkable Not only would it be political suicide for Obama not to use every means at his disposal, including military force to resist this, but it would be wrong for him not to. Precedents frequently exist for a reason and are followed even in inconvenient situations. Nobody likes Diplomatic scofflaws, but there's a reason for diplomatic immunity, because we can't assume the other side would not use threats of prosecution to pressure our side -- whoever 'other' and 'our' sides are. The same with a situation such as this. Would we want either Israelis or Palestinians to be allowed to arrest Clinton, Bush, or Carter for siding too much with the other side? What about a group of homophobic African and Eastern Eurpoean nations arresting a retired Obama for his gay friendly moves.
We've grown out of playing games of "Capture the King" in international relationships. Let's not go back.
And, finally, for a democratic leader, his (theoretical) primary responsibility is to the citizens who elected him, and it is up to them to judge him. That responsibility -- within reason and wih exceptions -- should not be compromised. A leader who is democratically defeated -- and Bush was not, but term-limited into retirement -- should not then be called into a foreign court because of judgments he has made based on that resposibility.
*wheW*
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | June 11, 2012 at 01:27 PM
I've got my own personal Watergate story. Well, not mine, but that of someone who used to be one of my closest friends, a long time ago.
During my senior year in high school, my friend worked Saturdays and some evenings in the Alexandria, VA library. I was studying there one evening in the fall of 1971, when she told me that she'd just gotten another call on the library phone from some guy who repeatedly called them up, claiming to be from the White House, and demanding books about Teddy Kennedy and Chappaquiddick.
According to All the President's Men, Howard Hunt of the Nixon White House, who was also one of the Watergate burglars, was indeed making such calls to local libraries. Of course, we didn't find that out until later.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | June 11, 2012 at 01:31 PM
would make it impossible to try him in an American Court
Except that during the Reagan Administration the USA signed, and ratified, a whole new treaty against the committing of torture. The laws of which weren't even on the books when Nixon was president. Those laws obligate the signatory nations to prosecute even their own leaders when they commit war crimes such as torture. As a consequence this:
And a foreigh or international tribunal would be unthinkable Not only would it be political suicide for Obama not to use every means at his disposal, including military force to resist this, but it would be wrong for him not to
is nationalistic bullshit.
Posted by: oddjob | June 11, 2012 at 01:33 PM
And for you to think I'm playing "capture the king" instead of pointing out war crimes we executed Nazis for committing is disgusting!
Posted by: oddjob | June 11, 2012 at 01:35 PM
My firm belief is that Obama should have begun by making the complete record of our programme of 'enhanced interrogation' available to the public.
The evidence itself would have provided political cover for prosecutions in the domestic courts, regardless of public reaction: all he would have had to do is remind people that the laws aren't just for the 'little people' - that our system ultimately doesn't work if we prosecute ordinary people for ordinary crimes, but give the powerful an exemption when they break the laws that only they can break by dint of their position.
I don't think our government should hand anyone over to the Hague, but it should prosecute to the fullest extent of the law any 'war crimes' (I don't like that phrase; it suggests that they aren't crimes absent a war, which is not so) that are also crimes under our laws and Constitution. And given our willingness to snatch people from anywhere in the world and try them in our courts (it hasn't just been the GWOT; remember Noriega?), I think we have to just let U.S. citizens accused of war crimes abroad know that they're on their own if they choose to travel abroad.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | June 11, 2012 at 02:09 PM
My firm belief is that Obama should have begun by making the complete record of our programme of 'enhanced interrogation' available to the public.
Thank you. That would have been an exemplary start and it would have indeed allowed things to proceed in some fashion that went somewhere useful.
Throwing up one's hands and saying, "Oh well...." while walking away is not good enough.
Not by a long shot.
Posted by: oddjob | June 11, 2012 at 02:13 PM
oddjob,
Easy there guy.
I understand your feelings on this, but as I have said repeatedly, had Obama gone after the Bush people as you suggest it would have been the end of his presidency before it began. He would have been crucified in large elements of the press, the Republicans would have gone to war with him, and there would have been scant public support for the effort.
In the end I think it would have come to naught -- I don't think there is a jury in America that would have convicted these guys if you ever could have gotten a case there.
I think it would have amounted to feel good posturing.
I think what l-t c suggests in terms of some sort of truth commission would have been more plausible.
Posted by: Sir Charles | June 11, 2012 at 03:16 PM
had Obama gone after the Bush people as you suggest it would have been the end of his presidency before it began
I don't disagree with this, but I also refuse to give either Bush or Obama a pass. I'm not ever going to overlook the fact that Shrub embraced and authorized a flagrant violation of US and international law of one of the most heinous sorts possible, and in the name of using interrogation tactics already universally panned as useless except for extracting false confessions.
I'm sorry if you find it unreasonable, but if you do then you'll have to make some other case based upon law that absolves expediency in the name of rejecting felony laws already on the books, and placed there by one of the most conservative presidents of the last half century, laws based upon an international treaty the USA of our fathers played a major role in drafting.
Obviously we baby boomers prefer to live easier lives than to deal with such inconveniences, especially when caused by the actions of "them", those nasty worthless Arab terrorists......
And as we all know, if they wear a towel on their heads then "they" are all the same......
I agree that LTC's approach makes the most sense, but Obama isn't even going to bother with that.
Posted by: oddjob | June 11, 2012 at 03:30 PM
I meant to link last week to this episode of Bill Moyers Journal I saw a weekend or two ago, but now is an excellent time to do it:
Reckoning with Torture
I realize I'm quite intense about this, but I recommend it because it's not as intense as I am, except about presenting the facts.
There's a website where you can go to watch ordinary Americans speak aloud the documentation already in the public domain, and then do it yourself.
It's not as good as having the feds. do it formally, but after a fashion it does what ltc recommends. If our government won't do it then we, the people, must.
Posted by: oddjob | June 11, 2012 at 03:39 PM
I certainly agree with l-tc that all the information should be out there, but it isn't like it is buried in a deep place that only we have access to. It's available and pretty well known, and hasn't started any sort of a noticeable 'Try Bush" movement. Any at all outside of a small corner of bloggerdom.
(I am not saying I like this, or that I wouldn't celebrate a situation in which Bush would be the defendant -- just that there will not be a situation where the sort of groundswell this would get would arise. It was unlikely in 2009, it is ridiculous now -- and would be disastrous to raise in the election.)
And, afaik, no acting or legitimately defeated (or retired) head of state has been tried, anywhere for any sort of International action. It is only when the leader has been deposed through war or revolution -- such as the Nuremberg defendants or Milosevic or Noriega -- when not merely he, but the system he has served under, is no longer viewed as legitimate, that any country has allowed an ex-leader to be put on trial.
Hmmm, let me see. The Saudi Royal family has a history of torture, the Chinese government has been guilty of crimes against labor, against its own citizens' freedoms, and can even be blamed, in essence, for deaths in America due to the faulty nature of products we have bought from them. Prosecute them?
Or what about Mike Bloomberg, or better, Ed Koch, both of whom technically 'allowed anti-Israeli -- and anti-Palestinian -- terror organizations to establish themselves in Brooklyn.' Punish them, or try them.
And how do we determine which international courts should be given legitimacy? But I'll come back to that later, being called for stuff around the house and tv watching.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | June 11, 2012 at 03:39 PM
And, afaik, no acting or legitimately defeated (or retired) head of state has been tried, anywhere for any sort of International action.
My understanding is that both the French and the British have after the fact prosecuted former government officials for torture (regarding the Algerians and the IRA respectively).
Posted by: oddjob | June 11, 2012 at 03:43 PM
Hmmm, let me see. The Saudi Royal family has a history of torture, the Chinese government has been guilty of crimes against labor, against its own citizens' freedoms, and can even be blamed, in essence, for deaths in America due to the faulty nature of products we have bought from them. Prosecute them?
If that's the best you can do, I'm ashamed of you for thinking you have anything to say worth paying attention to.
You want us to be like the Saudis or the Chinese? What do you think separates us from them if we aren't willing to carry out the laws when they're broken?
Posted by: oddjob | June 11, 2012 at 03:45 PM
how do we determine which international courts should be given legitimacy?
???
Why are you being obtuse?
It's already spelled out in US law. We are ratified signatories to the relevant treaty spelling out what is to be done.
You apparently need to get yourself up to speed.
Posted by: oddjob | June 11, 2012 at 03:50 PM
oddjob,
I don't know that I am suggesting that it is unreasonable -- I am simply saying that from the perspective of realpolitik no one with ambition like Obama's was going to sacrifice his presidency to tilting at this particular windmill.
Posted by: Sir Charles | June 11, 2012 at 03:53 PM
Offjob: I would have no problem at all with us trying Bush et al. I am sure it ain't gonna happen, but I'd be glad if it did. My comments about the Saudis and Chinese were not that they wouldn't punish their own, but that they would not submit -- nor should we, or any nation -- to their leaders being tried in an International Court, and that they -- and we -- would have the power and duty to resist it.
Again, your comment about British and French trials were of their own citizens. Again, no problem, but they were not international trials. PLEASE leep the two separate and don't conflate two different questions.
And, btw, I get heated too, so the personal comment is hardly offensive to me, in case someone was tempted to criticize you for it.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | June 11, 2012 at 03:55 PM
oddjob,
I know of no high level French or British prosecutions with respect to either Algeria or Ireland, both cases where torture was pretty clearly high level government policy.
If you can enlighten me otherwise I would be interested.
Posted by: Sir Charles | June 11, 2012 at 03:56 PM
and 'offjob' was just a typo I saw too late to correct.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | June 11, 2012 at 03:56 PM
I couldn't find the original book claiming McCarthy was gay, but I knew it was the same book that discussed Cardinal Spellman, and was able to trace it that way. It was Michael Signorile, and the book was, I'm pretty sure, QUEER IN AMERICA -- both discussions were in Appendixes. (He repeats the claims about Spellman later in another book, but this mentioned both.)
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | June 11, 2012 at 05:06 PM
Despite all the reasons not to one-third of union voters plan to vote for Romney, the pro-layoffs candidate.
Posted by: oddjob | June 11, 2012 at 05:07 PM
If you can enlighten me otherwise I would be interested.
I will keep looking, but as of now it appears I stand corrected here.
Posted by: oddjob | June 11, 2012 at 05:08 PM
Oddjob: Can I remind you, to back up Sir Charles' point, how strong the paranoia is already about 'International Law" being referred to even in Supreme Court decisions.
This is not the "Sharia" controversy, but includes criticisms of Justice Breyer (?) for his referring to international standards of law. With the Right's ability to see sinister plots everywhere, this has already been condemned by state party platform in several states, and there have already been bills submitted in Congress that would ban the practice.
Maybe -- just maybe -- a President Clinton (Bill or Hillary) could have pulled it off. But President Barack Hussein Obama? If he'd tried it, even Crazy Chrissie -- and every other Republican, no matter how insane or legally culpable -- would have won in a landslide, and I am not sure Obama wouldn't have been impeached -- with a LOT of Democrats feeling forced to vote for the bill.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | June 11, 2012 at 05:17 PM
This just up on the Post: http://bit.ly/LOjgrp
Posted by: Paula B | June 11, 2012 at 05:20 PM
Can I remind you, to back up Sir Charles' point, how strong the paranoia is already about 'International Law" being referred to even in Supreme Court decisions.
I am aware.
It doesn't change the fact that Bush and his advisors were torturers and the Republicans have embraced this as a good stance for the USA to hold to, does it?
How then do you stop that and make the people of the USA remember that only a couple of decades ago our fathers found this idea revolting and established laws, not only international ones but also ones in US lawbooks, against our doing this?
A torturing people rarely stop at torturing only foreigners. Once it gets into the blood (as it were) any body of "them" (the poor, the likely criminal, etc.) will do.
Posted by: oddjob | June 11, 2012 at 05:26 PM
(rarely stops)
Posted by: oddjob | June 11, 2012 at 05:27 PM
Passing such laws was a fully bipartisan act, too. It wasn't as if the Republicans of the 1990's had a problem with doing so.
Posted by: oddjob | June 11, 2012 at 05:29 PM
oddjob,
Re: union members voting for Romney. Jesus wept. You know Lenin supposedly said that "capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them."
I am pretty convinced that workers will instead happily deliver themselves into total penury, providing that the black guy ends up with an even worse deal.
Posted by: Sir Charles | June 11, 2012 at 05:32 PM
I am pretty convinced that workers will instead happily deliver themselves into total penury, providing that the black guy ends up with an even worse deal.
And the Spics, of course. :(
Posted by: oddjob | June 11, 2012 at 05:35 PM
oddjob,
I also don't think there is a resolution to what you are arguing here on the torture front. I vehemently oppose torture in any and all forms. But I tend to think Obama would have been a fool -- a principled fool perhaps, but a fool nonetheless -- to do as you suggest.
It is an act of moral relativism on my part, but my sense is that he is acting just as the leadership in other western states have done when faced with these kind of allegations.
Posted by: Sir Charles | June 11, 2012 at 05:35 PM
I think you are correct, Sir C., but I worry about what happens next. Sooner or later a Republican will be president again.......
Posted by: oddjob | June 11, 2012 at 05:38 PM
"Significantly, U.S. intervention could not be confined to Syria and would inevitably entail confronting Iran and possibly Russia. This the Obama administration is unwilling to do, although it should."
- neocon wingnut John Bolton, in a column at National Review
"John’s wisdom, clarity and courage are qualities that should typify our foreign policy."
- Mitt Romney on John Bolton
(Hat tip, Sully.)
Posted by: oddjob | June 11, 2012 at 05:43 PM
oddjob,
Re: our Latino brethren.
Goes without saying.
Posted by: Sir Charles | June 11, 2012 at 05:44 PM
the entire republican game plan is to make everyone afraid that somebody they consider lower down the totem pole will end up feeling all uppity and equal.
y'all forgot uppity women, wanting to just not get pregnant unless they want to be -- and how that has been reframed as "costing too much" or "infringing on the rights of employers," while all women who wish to manage their own bodies are portrayed as "sluts."
and also on the uppity women front, wanting shit like equal pay, which is reframed as either "unnecessary" or "letting disgruntled workers drain funds on frivolous lawsuits," or slightly less publicly as those bitches stealing your jobs.
also, those freaking poor people and young people and old people, and people with similar names to felons, and people who moved recently, having the temerity to think they get a vote, too. reframed as "vote fraud."
i could probably go on, but will shut up now.
Posted by: kathy a. | June 11, 2012 at 06:05 PM
yeah, sure -- i'd rather sign up for a war with syria and iran and russia than be treated as an equal citizen. or fund our schools. or provide food and health care to our citizens.
this shit is why i cannot think very much past how WE WILL ALL BE IN FLAMING HELL if this election is lost. and even worse, so far as SCOTUS goes.
Posted by: kathy a. | June 11, 2012 at 06:10 PM
so i lied about shutting up. sue me. oddjob made me do it. ;)
Posted by: kathy a. | June 11, 2012 at 06:12 PM
I hadn't forgotten; I just was concentrating on torture today. :(
Posted by: oddjob | June 11, 2012 at 06:29 PM
i'd rather sign up for a war with syria and iran and russia than be treated as an equal citizen. or fund our schools. or provide food and health care to our citizens.
"In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, war without end. Amen."
Posted by: oddjob | June 11, 2012 at 06:32 PM
This at least is something that can be done, however little.
Posted by: oddjob | June 11, 2012 at 06:37 PM
Finally the docs weigh in publicly in regard to legislators making health decisions and policy about women. The statement is quite clear. Yes, there is a war on women. No party affiliation is mentioned or needed. The implicitness is nicely damning.
Not caught up on comments, so hope this isn't a redundant link.
Also thank you all for your kitchen materials expertise. Frontrunner at the moment appears to be soapstone. Slate second.
And oddjob, the fake pot story is quite frightening. My kid was very lucky it sounds. And the problem with legalizing and controlling cannabis is...?
Posted by: nancy | June 11, 2012 at 07:20 PM
yay, nancy! thanks for passing that link.
Posted by: kathy a. | June 11, 2012 at 07:59 PM
At last! Thanks, Nancy.
Posted by: paula b | June 11, 2012 at 10:05 PM
I am not sure if I should be offended, and am asking the women of the group to help me. There is a new show called SAVING HOPE, pretty awful, but I got through the pilot because it features Michael Shanks who I enjoy watching. It's a medical show with a premise so loopy (After a car accident Shanks winds up in a coma -- on his wedding night with another doctor -- and apparentky can wander the halls of the Hospital and comunicate with dead patients and others who are in comas) that one reviewer said it would have worked better played for camp.
But that's not the offensiveness. Most of the stories were boilerplate medical coated with saccharine, but one story was different.
Obese teenage woman arrives at hospital complaining of intestinak probkems. Before they can do a test, they discover (Surprise, surprise) she's pregnant. "When was your last period?" "Four months ago" (maybe she said four and a half, no more). Her boyfriend is shown glowering during the first interview.
A day later she gives birth to a viable, fully formed baby. "Aha! The baby is too formed to be only four months, the boyfriend realizes it can't be his and..."
Nope, the next plot turn is the mother dies of a post-partum embolism, leaving the baby and the father -- and no one is questioning he IS the father. "Aha!? The plot is discovering how such a death could occur in a hospital shown as an upper class, highly functioning place."
Nope, never mentioned. "Aha? So the question is how the father can cope with a child so premature it will need special care for months at best, and may have serious disabilities, Right?"
Nope. Nobody ever suggests the child is in any way different from a full-term child except for size and needing an incubator. The plot turns out to be whether the father will accept the baby or put it up for adoption because 'he killed my fiance.' (And the show ends with the expected 'kitchee-koo' moment as he begins to connect with the child.)
My problem is not with the sappiness of the plot or the ending, but with the portrayal of a four month developed fetus as indistinguishable from a full-term baby, and the (to me, at least) obvious anti-abortion message.
Am I wrong to be offended, or should I send an e-mail to NBC tomorrow. (I'd only refrain if the idea of a viable, fully formed child at that age was now a likelihood.)
I'm not a parent, and certainly I'm not female, so I want to confirm my instinct. "Ladies?"
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | June 12, 2012 at 01:44 AM
prup -- patients forget, and patients lie. a 4 month fetus is not viable. not even close. perhaps one or more of the story lines you have thought of is saved for future episodes?
Posted by: kathy a. | June 12, 2012 at 02:18 AM
kathy: thanx for confirming what I believed. No, the story lines and the character are unlikely to be carried over -- a better show like HAWTHORNE might have, but not this mess.
I was sure a four-month old fetus was not viable -- but a number of states have begun limiting abortions at that time -- one state at least declaring a woman is to be considered pregnant as of the end of her last period. No, there was no hint of the patient lying -- and she's dead and out of the picture anyway. And without that as a potential plot hook -- whose kid was it? -- there was no reason to write the scene that way except as a deliberate lie to support pregnancy-forcing.
I have no problem, as I'll be writing, with a show taking a stand on an issue, even if I disagree. A show that pictures a woman maddened by regret over an abortion night be one-sided, but could be honest. But this is just an argument based on a lie, and I will be writing that e-mail (and putting up a post on TV.Com).
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | June 12, 2012 at 02:35 AM
I tried to respond but was thwarted by my commect being vanished.
Oh well...
Posted by: KN | June 12, 2012 at 03:07 AM
Aaargh. I give up. Tell me I wasn't hallucinating and that comments were closed here.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | June 12, 2012 at 03:32 AM
I don't see them closed on this thread, Jim, but they were closed at one point yesterday on the tech thread. Later, several people posted there. Thread gremlins?
Posted by: Paula B | June 12, 2012 at 09:02 AM
I did make the post, here and simply copied it -- saying I was doing so and with a short introduction -- in my e-mail to NBC.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | June 12, 2012 at 09:15 AM
They were closed on all threads for a while, hence the tech thread, but, sometime betweem 3:07 and 3:32 AM I checked and this one was closed. I even wrote Sir C about it, and feel more of an idiot than usual. Ain't there nobody smart, techy-wise nowhere nohow we could get to deal with these problems, and the HTML cascade, and even rework the blog list?
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | June 12, 2012 at 09:25 AM
I've mentioned the "You Can Play" Project repeatedly, but there's another interesting tie-up between pro sports and the LGBTQ life that hasn't been suitably publicized.
That this is being set up at a Catholic University is something of a surprise, less so because it is Jesuit-run (non-Catholics and even Catholics get confused over the differences between 'order-run' schools, programs, and positions, and 'diocese-run' ones.) But the key is the person making the donation, Paul Tagliabue, the ex-Commisioner of the NFL. I haven't found a copy of any statement from him explaining why he -- and his wife -- are specificlly interested in this topic, but I did find the following quote in the Religion Dispatches article that let me know about this:
Btw, I wonder if YCP will have a special video up for the Stanley Cup. If so, I'll let you know. (And that link seems dubious, with an unexpected space in the address. I copied it, but hope it works.)
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | June 12, 2012 at 10:02 AM
Tagliabue? That is so cool! :)
In other news today:
Former governor Mitt Romney’s administration in 2006 blocked publication of a state antibullying guide for Massachusetts public schools because officials objected to use of the terms “bisexual’’ and “transgender’’ in passages about protecting certain students from harassment, according to state records and interviews with current and former state officials....
From the bottom of the front page of today's Boston Globe, as was this:
Last week an obscure 2006 book on sexual ethics by a nun, a retired Yale Divinity School theologian, rocketed to number 13 on Amazon’s bestseller list.
Its dazzling success came courtesy of the Vatican, which sparked readers’ interest with its stern warning that Sister Margaret Farley’s “Just Love’’ contradicted Catholic teaching. Using justice as a framework for sexual ethics, Farley had written that masturbation, gay marriage, and divorce could be seen as morally acceptable.
...
But, as leaders of a group of nuns arrive in Rome on Tuesday to meet with Vatican officials over recent sanctions, their supporters say the hierarchy’s actions have widened the chasm between the church’s male overseers and ordinary Catholics. Sisters have long been the face of the church to many of its people through their work in education, health care, and social justice....
Posted by: oddjob | June 12, 2012 at 10:24 AM
Oddjob: Thanx. I saw the Romney piece on a link at Maddow/Benen and was going to mention it. On the book, while the story appearing in the Globe requires reminding people of how eagerly publishers fought to get their books "Banned in Boston" knowing it would increase sales everywhere else. a more serious comment is to refer you all to a piece in Religion Dispatches that goves more background on the writer and discusses it from a Catholic-Feminist point of view. Worth reading for itself, and for quotes like "Vatican interlocutors, who obviously have no clue about such matters, only embarrass themselves by publishing their ignorance in six languages."
Speaking of Religion Dispatches, it's pne of my first nominees if we rework the BlogRoll -- and, as previously, I habe no qualms in making suggestions, because there's never been a hard dividing line between COG Members and commenters. Oh, and when I mentioned litbrit, it was just to define the time, since she had done it before the mutual parting of the ways -- and yes, I miss her -- and moreso mhb -- and wish they'd come back.
Anyway, I'd certainly suggest RD, Blog for Arizona and, of course, Desert Beacon for inclusion. Maybe I'll toss out a few more -- any thought about having a reference section? Because I'd definitely hope Bible Gateway and the Internet Sacred Text Archive would go there, if we started one.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | June 12, 2012 at 11:24 AM
Oh Lordy Mama, this one is too delightful.
A prominent Republican distanced himself from Gov. Romney's declaration that Wisconsin showed us the country doesn't want the government spending money on firefighters, teachers, policemen, etc. He pointed out that Wisconsin still retained protections for firefighters and police, denied that they were examples of 'big government' and that they were local and state responsibilities and not concerns of the Federal Government anyway.
What brave last remaining sensible Republican said this and condemned Romney's defense of Scott Walker?
Scott Walker.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | June 12, 2012 at 11:37 AM
45 years ago today, SCOTUS decided that marriage is a fundamental civil right. have the tissues handy.
Posted by: kathy a. | June 12, 2012 at 01:37 PM
I probably shouldn't have gotten on their email newsletter list because my blood pressure soars. But we ignore these folks at our peril. They have been very effective in state houses across the country this past year.
The AUL Strategy to Topple Roe
The Corresponding Rhetoric
Posted by: jeanne marie | June 12, 2012 at 03:00 PM
jeanne marie, thank you for keeping watch for the team. what a 24 carat load of crap.
anyone with any sense knows that a basic pregnancy test does not sex-type embryos. most abortions (spontaneous abortions, too, also known as miscarriages) happen in early pregnancy, and without additional testing that might reveal sex of the fetus.
why exactly is gender-selection for abortions a problem? the idea that female embryos would of course be the ones aborted rests on the idea that women are less worthy. so this whole argument is a big knot of patriarchal straw.
Posted by: kathy a. | June 12, 2012 at 04:44 PM
jm: This is a little more deadly and diabolical than it appears at first glance, and the response that "Oh, that's not a real problem in the US" doesn't cut it. This isn't like the 'sharia law' idiocy.
It is so so so extremely tempting to go along with this sort of a law. Abortion for sex selection is an ugly idea, whatever sex is chosen, and, of course, most of us assume that 'male' would be the preferred sex. So why not give in and agree, knowing how rare such a case actually is and how hard it would be to prove it? After all, what would be the harm.
Other than completely undercutting Roe, none at all. We forget the "Phelps rule."
This is why I have spoken so strongly against our defending Roe by 'pity parties.' A woman does not 'earn' the right to choose to have an abortion because she's been raped, or abused by a family member, or because her state has chosen to keep her ignorant through 'abstinence-only' education. A woman does not have that right because we understand her reason for exercising it, oer because we agree with it. She has it inherently, and continues to have it if she chooses to exercise it merely so she can continue to give her pet poodles monthly manicures.
That's what a right means and we forget it at our peril.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | June 12, 2012 at 05:07 PM
My comment was written before I saw kathy's. I basically agree, but I'll admit to findng the idea of sex-selection abortion distasteful. The key point is that it doesn't matter what I, or anyone, thinks about it.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | June 12, 2012 at 05:15 PM