Thursday,
February 24 2005
CHEATERS
LIE AND LIARS CHEAT: Who should win the award for biggest
liar and cheat? The nominees are:
Barry
Bonds: When asked
about his steroid use on Tuesday, Bonds slammed the media
as "liars", and told them they should be focused on
"other issues" like alcohol and tobacco use. Then Bonds
played the race card, saying that he's receiving additional scrutiny
because he's black.
(Note
to Barry: dude, you took steroids. How does your race have anything
to do with that? Jason Giambi is getting a lot of scrutiny too,
and he's not on the verge of breaking one of the game's most famous
records with the help of "the cream" and "the clear."
When a reporter asked whether you considered taking steroids cheating,
you replied: "As cheating? I don't -- I don't know what cheating
is." You got that right.)
Ward
Churchill: The CU professor has been outed as an academic
fraud. He's also been accused of having distorted and misrepresented
his heritage over the years for professional gain. On Tuesday
night Churchill saw fit to declare that he's
the victim of a right-wing attack.
(Note
to Ward: When you say things that are outrageously offensive to
a vast majority of Americans, you're going to take serious heat.
That's why it's called "public outrage". You think this
entire episode is the product of conspiracy by the knuckle-dragging
right? Paul
Campos - a left-leaning colleague of yours at CU - has been
one of your most vocal critics.
As
the new self-described "poster boy for academic freedom"
we expect you to fervently support the right of conservative speakers
to appear on college campuses across the country - even if their
views are despicable to you - and to defend them against "left-wing
attacks.")
What
these two men have in common is that they're willing to pull up
bogeymen (racism & the vast right-wing conspiracy) to distract
and defend themselves from the real issues at hand. Send in your
vote by clicking
here. I expect it to be a really tight race.
HEATHER
BEATS SUSAN SILLY: If you've been following the Kinsley-Estrich
thing you absolutely have to find five minutes to read Heather
MacDonald's smack-down of Estrich over at City Journal today.
THEY
MUST BE EX-PATS: Davids
Medienkritik has pictures from a pro-Bush rally in Mainz,
Germany. - T. Bevan 11:32 am Link
| Email | Send
to a Friend
Monday,
February 21 2005
WILL 2008 BE THE YEAR OF THE WOMAN? As a precursor to
their upcoming "First
Woman President Symposium," Siena College just completed
a nationwide poll asking whether Americans are ready to elect
a woman president. Here are some highlights:
- Respondents
were given a list of 4 women (Hillary Clinton, Condi Rice, Elizabeth
Dole & Barbara Boxer) and asked whether any of the four
should run for president. Clinton finished first with 53% saying
she should run and 37% saying she shouldn't. Rice finished 2nd
with 42% saying she should run and 41% saying she shouldn't.
- A majority
of those polled - including 81% of Democrats and 53% of Republicans
- said a woman would do a better job of dealing with domestic
issues such as education and health care.
- Just over
20% of respondents said a woman would do a worse job than a
man as Commander-in-Chief, with nearly the same number of people
saying a woman would do a better job. 45% said it wouldn't make
a difference.
In general,
I think the country is more than ready to elect a female president.
The results from the last bullet point above seem to suggest that
even while we consider ourselves a nation at war, most Americans
have no problem accepting a woman as Commander-in-Chief. This
confirms something we already know: perceptions of strength and
credibility on national security are far less a function of gender
than they are of party.
That's what
makes Hillary Clinton so shrewd. She has the ability to recognize
the long view and the skill and discipline to maintain it. Over
the past two years she has occasionally played to Dem base on
the issue of the war, but she's done it without ever getting caught
up in or becoming associated with the antiwar hysterics of her
party.
And now,
while a good number of those on the left are dancing around Howard
Dean, still gripped by an antiwar fever that induces shoe-throwing
tantrums, Hillary continues to go about the business of building
her national security credentials and enhancing her image
as a credible future Commander-in-Chief.
This begs
another question which we'll tackle at some point down the road:
Does Hillary really believe anything she says with regard to national
security issues or is it all purely about political positioning?
- T. Bevan 2:32 pm Link
| Email | Send
to a Friend
ESTRICH
CROSSES THE LINE: Once said, some things can't be taken
back. They can be apologized for, but they can't be excused. Susan
Estrich said
just such a thing last week when she wrote to Michael Kinsley:
My
suggestion that your publishing it would be better (for you
too) than my having to go outside somehow constitutes me blackmailing
you is so outlandish that it underscores the question I've been
asked repeatedly in recent days, and that does worry me, and
should worry you: people are beginning to think that your illness
may have affected your brain, your judgment, and your ability
to do this job.
Far
from her
previous assertion that she's "a nice girl at heart,"
Estrich's reference to Kinsley's disease (Parkinson's) seems to
confirm the opposite. Furthermore, it leaves such a bad taste
in one's mouth it distracts from whatever merit there might be
to her argument.
On
Friday morning I wrote
something of a defense of Kinsley based on what I know about
other op-ed pages around the country and what I think Michael
Kinsley's responsibilities are as an editor. Nevertheless, I don't
know Kinsley personally so I can't speak to the issue of whether
he's a chauvinist who is actively discriminating against women.
But
Jack Shafer has worked with Kinsley. And on Friday afternoon he
launched this
stunning attack against his former boss:
"And
before I go, I'd like to second Susan Estrich, who has attacked
Michael Kinsley on the charges of sexual discrimination, which
he feebly attempts to repel. In his long, miserable chauvinist
career, Kinsley has done more to block women, their views, and
their professional aspirations than any journalist I know. Just
ask Dorothy Wickenden, Ann Hulbert, Jamie Baylis, Emily Yoffe,
Helen Rogan, Suzanne Lessard, Jodie Allen, Judith Shulevitz,
Jodi Kantor, Margaret Carlson, Dahlia Lithwick, Kathleen Kincaid,
Lakshmi Gopalkrishnan, June Thomas, and others. They'll fill
you in."
I
don't know Jack Shafer either, so I can't say what personal politics
might possibly be behind this remark. But Shafer's willingness
to throw out a host of names in public to corroborate his opinion
doesn't seem like the move of someone who thinks he'll be proved
wrong. (UPDATE: Shafer's slam seemed weird to
me, but I clearly missed the sarcasm he intended. After being
alerted and rereading the passage it seems pretty obvious these
are all women whose careers advanced under Kinsley's leadership
and who would vouch for him, not condemn him. My apologies for
being so embarrassingly slow on the up take.)
One
last note. Kevin
Drum has weighed in with a thoughtful post on the matter that
is worth reading. Kevin speculates on why it's not only the op-ed
pages around the country that are dominated by men (even those
with female editorial page editors) but the barrier-free blogosphere
as well. - T. Bevan 8:32 am Link
| Email | Send
to a Friend
