More Clinton-Related Ambivalence:

Last weekend, I heard a presentation on coded language, gendered discourse and the 2004 elections, and the presenter got around to talking about Edwards on the war and about his famous op-ed that began with the three words "I was wrong." The presenter then speculated that Clinton has never admitted as much, nor given any indication that she thought she was wrong, because she's a woman. His point was that Clinton is having to dedicate so much energy to fighting off gender stereotypes -- in this case, decisive=masculine, indecisive=feminine -- that she gets led into untenable and unwinnable positions sometimes. One of these is the war vote and her inability to acknowledge that she was wrong back in 02/03. To admit that she was wrong is to act "womanly," which is still seen as a negative in American politics; say what you will about Hillary Clinton, but the more this goes on, the more obvious it becomes that even though she herself contributes extravagantly to the anti-Clinton fire, it's a blaze because of latent sexism that hasn't yet been worked out. If taking potshots at Hillary means taking potshots at her, fine by me. If taking potshots at her means having to resort to some sexist or otherwise gendered language, then that's equally revealing.

For instance: it's acceptable and "funny" to show up at a Clinton event with a sign saying "Iron My Shirt." I have $50 that there's not a reasonable person in America that would roll into an Obama event with a sign saying "Pick My Cotton, Boy," and I have another $50 that the mainstream meadia would be all over that like stink on shit, whereas the Iron sign ... is chuckled at.

So maybe, just maybe, some of Clinton's stupid shit that I take exception to -- like her stubborn, obstinate unwillingness to admit that she was wrong -- is due less to her and more to us.

Maybe.

Clinton Expects Superdelegates To Decide Soon:

Last weekend, after a conference, I was paired up with a German historian and we went into a couple of high school to speak to kids about what was on their minds. Theoretically, we were sent to discuss religion and politics in American history, with the idea that they'd be particularly interested in the upcoming election (and they were), but they had a range of questions and things in which they were interested.

One of the questions that I was asked at the second school was does Hillary Clinton still have a chance to win, and should she quit? My answers, obviously, were no and yes, but I qualified my answer. No, the math says she's dead in the water, probably floating upside down. Should she quit? Yes. At some point, the writing is on the wall and that last snowstorm or avalanche has kept you off the peak. (I don't think I analogized that awkwardly there, but bear with me.) BUT -- and here's the but -- if she's sincere about letting the last primaries go, so that all of the states can be heard from, and then she takes a look around, after the process has run its course, and says "hasta," then ok, that was legitimate. It may not have been her reason for going through all of that, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a legitimate argument to make, and so she'll have to get the benefit of the doubt for it.

This is why I'm having a hard time making heads or tails out of Clinton suggesting that superdelegates make up their minds next week. I've read similar stories around, and depending on how Clinton is quoted, she's saying one of two things:

1. "Ok, I'm out."
   The optimistic way to look at this, from my point of view, is a signal that Clinton will drop out after Tuesday. Personally, I love the idea of waking up to a birthday headline that says something to the effect of "It's Over," not because I particularly care for Obama (not really), but because this needs to be done with, and done with the correct way, not:



2. "You're either with me or I'm taking it to the convention floor.
   This is the other way this can be taken, and, again, depending on how it's quoted, seems the more reasonable interpretation. I hope it's not, but I sincerely dislike Clinton, and thus am more inclined to distrust her.
   
   Here's the problem, as I see it: Clinton has a decent argument, that being, that she won most of the "big states" in the primaries. True. She also, I think, won enough of the big states that in a winner-take-all system, she'd have won the nomination. Fair enough, but just one question:
   
   So?
   
   That's really like arguing that Gore should be president because he won the popular vote in 2000. That's great and all, but it's, unfortunately, beside the point, because that's not the object of the contest from that perspective. (Now, that he actually should have won in the EC because he actually DID win in Florida is a different argument.)
   
   Clinton would have won under GOP rules ... but this wasn't the GOP primary. She competed, and seems to have lost, under the Democratic rules, in part because Obama was smarter about playing the game than was Clinton.

We'll see next week, I suppose, but my opinion is set and pretty clear: Clinton gave it a good fight, but she came up short and needs to do the right thing and respect the process.

As a parting shot, but I think a justified one, I, and many others, have watched Bush subvert the process and go against the rules and lie, cheat and steal throughout his presidency, and we're sick of it. Clinton's big thing is "respecting the will of the voters" -- and yet she went against the process as it was established in a cynical ploy to put an ace in her back pocket for later and now, lo and behold, may be threatening to try and grab the nomination, which she couldn't win in the contest, by back-room maneuvering and chicanery.

Thanks, but I've had enough of that sort of thing. I'd like to see whether someone who doesn't believe they're entitled to the office will behave with more respect for the rule of law. Clinton's behavior indicates a lack of respect for the law, and further indicates a belief that she and her cause are sufficiently just as to deserve to be above the law. Been there, done that, have any variety of "Bush sucks" t-shirts that I could obtain, don't want to do it again.

Here's hoping.

MSSM With Good Things To Say About the Raiders?

Perish the thought!

It's a weird time when ESPN.com and NFL.com BOTH have articles saying nice things about the Raiders generally, or specific Raiders.

Over at NFL.com, they've a feature on the best free-agent signings of the last 15 years. The pick for 1999?

Rich Gannon. As well it should be.

Gannon's numbers in the four years he was the full-time starter in Oakland?

2,155 attempts
1,367 completions
63.4% competion rate (59.0% at the low end, 67.8% at the high)
15,787 yards
105 touchdowns
44 interceptions

An average season?

342 for 539, 63.4%, 3,947, 26, and 11. Oh, and he was good for a bit over 300 and 4 on the ground in any given season, too. OH, and one MORE thing -- his completion percentage and rating both improved annually.

You know what? I'd take that as a long-term average for any duration, any amount of years.

Is it any wonder that of all of the Raider QBs I can remember watching -- starting with the downside of Plunkett's career through Russell -- Gannon remains my favorite? Any wonder that I have a signed, framed Gannon jersey on my office wall?

Over at ESPN, meanwhile, there's a very, very curious little projection, a "Five Teams That Will Surprise You" sort of thing. Number five? Oakland.

Here's the money bit:

Sure, the Raiders look to still be the most dysfunctional team in football. But they have plenty of talent on the roster and, no matter what Al Davis thinks, Lane Kiffin can coach.

When's the last time the Raiders were spoken of as having "plenty of talent on the roster," by someone now physically in that very moment wearing some combination of silver and black?

Good times ahead, maybe, finally . . . here's hoping.

Meanwhile, my Lakers are one game away from the NBA Finals. Here's the upside there: we're flying back to the US tomorrow, which means from Game 5 on, I can actually watch the games.

Good times ahead, maybe -- depends on who wins in the East, but either way, should be a good Finals, but here's the real link:

When is it appropriate to start talking about the Gasol deal in the category of "best-ever trades"? Not yet -- the Lakers need a ring or several out of the deal, and he needs to stay healthy and complete his career at the level he projects at -- but if both of those happen, it's a given that this trade will be high on any all-time list.

FBI Opposed Torture:

This is an interesting little article about the fault lines among agencies and groups regarding interrogation policy among detainees.

This isn't necessarily rats deserting a sinking ship, since this comes out in a report issued by Justice, not the FBI, unfortunately; it would have been easier to see this as a sign of a gradual move toward legal proceedings (criminal or otherwise) moving forward. If the rats start diving off as the vessel takes on water, it's a good bet it's going to hit bottom.

Still, it's some small comfort to see that there was no monolithic, agency-spanning agreement at the top, and that there were voices in opposition, even if they were either ignored, or drowned out, or both.

I can almost imagine the Fox News stories now: "The FBI Hates America!" "They hate the troops -- see how they blame the troops for torture? Well, those are OUR troops, and WE support them, and THEY know best! If they needed to 'embarrass' some of those terrorists, then who are we to judge?"

Damned if that doesn't work on too many people, though.

Songs You Never, Ever, EVER Skip:

Everyone has moments when even their erstwhile favorite songs just aren't doing it for them, and they hit the skip button, whether on the ITunes, the MP3 player, the "old-school" cd player (HA!), or, even, by lifting the needle and skipping the track physically (mark my words, I WILL have a record player again!).

But there are some that you never, ever, ever skip. Just can't do it.

One of those just hit my player a minute ago (actually, roughly 6 minutes ago, but who's counting), got me thinking about it.

The offender? Iron Maiden: Stranger in a Strange Land. There are better songs out there, but they're damn few and far between.

So I got to thinking (hey, beats working!) about other songs that I would never, ever, ever skip, and here's a rough list:

- Iron Maiden: Lord of Light (neither this nor Stranger is their best song [I still give that to Paschendale] but they never, ever get skipped)
- Meatloaf: Bat Out of Hell
- Immortal: Solarfall
- Opeth: Godhead's Lament
- DMX: Party Up
- Nelly Furtado: Forca
- King Diamond: At the Graves
- Boston: Foreplay (Long Time)
- The Gathering: Third Chance
- Paula Cole: I Believe in Love
- Slayer: War Ensemble
- The Hellacopters: Dog Day Morning
- Styx: Half Penny, Two Penny
- Styx: Everything is Cool

That's an easy fifteen. Nothing terribly surprising, if you know me or my tastes well enough. I wonder what a full list would look like -- almost enough to fart around making it.

Almost.

Chris Matthews Eviscerates Right-Wing Host Kevin James

While I'm linking to videos, this one is unbelievbably aggravating, what with everyone trying to shout down everyone else, but it's worth it for the payoff: shockingly, the idiot doesn't know what he's talking about.

Olbermann on Bush:

How he did this without cursing I'll never know, but what a tirade -- and he's essentially correct, too. Watch.

Baby Boning Up on Her Southern Knowledge:

It's t-minus ten days now until we hit the planes back to VA for eight months, which makes Lilja's book of choice yesterday all the more amusing. Now that she's crawling, she's much more inclined to play by herself and amuse herself for good stretches of time -- really good stretches, since she's curious about absolutely everything (though a bit too interested in cables and cords).

Yesterday afternoon, she meandered over to one of the book shelves, pulled a book out, and was just on her belly opening it, turning pages, managing to take the dust jacket off without ripping it (kind of impressive, actually).

Her book of choice?

1001 Things Everyone Should Know About the South.

Incredible choice.

A Fantastic Consideration of Race and Gender in the Primaries:

It's probably a wee bit presumptuous to link to a post at the Daily Kos, but I read this a little while ago, and thought it was too good not to share with anyone who happened not to have read it yet.

One Step Closer to an NFL Lockout:

Click.

I've already said pretty much everything I have to say about the matter, but I will be watching to see what develops.

CA Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban:

Good for them.

Of course, it just looks like something strange is afoot when Massachusetts and California take the lead, but it's still a good thing all around.

And as ridiculous as I find the idea of Arnie as governor, I have to say good for him, too:

Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would have granted marriage to same-sex couples, said in a statement he respected the court's decision and "will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

Some people out there are going to accuse the court of "making law," and they could be right -- I haven't read the decision, so I don't know what sorts of provisions the judges put in there, suggesting courses of action. Short of that, a declaration that a law is unconstitutional is not "legislating from the bench."

The only complication I see in this is where the line is bgetween the legitimate use of the people's recourse to their legislature to redress judicial decisions and illegitimate use of the same. This is clearly, in my mind, a case in the latter category: basic, fundamental rights should not be able to be restricted by legislative vote any more than by judicial or executive fiat. The line is less clear in other instances, however.

Still, this was the right decision, and hopefully people will realize that the world hasn't imploded, their lives have not at all been affected, and we can gradually start figuring out that we can, in fact, live our own lives and let other people live theirs, too -- all while actually being treated equally under the law. Wouldn't that be just something!

The Veepstakes:

For a while, I've been figuring that Bill Richardson is the natural choice for Obama's VP.

I'm throwing my hat in the predictive ring:

Mark Warner.

That's Obama's VP candidate once all this gets sorted out.

Leaves me wondering who in the hell the Dems will run for John Warner's (no relation) open seat, and half wondering whether George "Imadoofus" Allen will decide he's bored and could probably win in a walk essentially unopposed (sadly, he'd be right), and step in to take it himself, away from presumptive nominee Jim "I'm So Dumb, You Should Feel Bad for Picking on Me" Gilmore.

Obama/Warner. You heard it here first. If you heard it elsewhere first, let me keep my illusion of novelty and insight, please.

The Idiot Demographic Continues to be Heard From:

Ah, Georgia. Where would we be without you?

Probably finally rounding up to the 21st century; Mississippi, Alabama and Lousiana would still be holding us on the shy side, but hey, we'd be that one step closer.

One of the 'better' responses to this that I've seen is "well, would it be racist if it were W's face?"

I have to believe it was asked with a straight face.

Why Would He Even Want to Cater to This Idiot Demographic?

Take a look at this.

Or this.

There are some bewilderingly, mind-bendingly, jaw-droppingly stupid statements in these articles. Ordinarily, I'd pull some of the 'better' (note: sarcasm) moments out, but I'd rather leave those words as contained as possible, and direct people to the source.

Look, I grew up in the South, I get it, there are still people like this out there. It's embarrassing, but they're there. Still, some of the shit that comes out of people's mouths leaves me bewildered.

For his part, Obama seems to be handling it well, though he'd better never slip up, lest he confirm these dipshits ideas and maybe, maybe drop a few more into the "mouth-breather" column.

It's . . . beyond me, utterly and totally. Sadly, these assholes vote.

Hating Hillary: How Much Her, How Much Us?

Last week, I somewhat idly wondered whether Clinton is so widely reviled because of her, or because of us. It's an idle speculation because of course it's both in combination, but the proportion would be interesting.

Exhibits A (Her) and B (us) are below.

Exhibit A: Instinctive reaction to this bit of stupidity isn't a good one, but Amy does a nice job of breaking it down. This is definitely in the "her" category.

Exhibit B: REMOVED.

Not the video itself, but the fact that this has gotten to me a couple of different ways, and yet I've not seen anything like this involving Obama, or McCain, despite the latter's world-famous ability to through a genuine temper tantrum.

Leaving aside the fact that it beggars belief to suggest that of the three, only Clinton has had a meltdown like this at some point during the campaign, I submit that this counts as "us" regarding Clinton collectively as "just a woman after all," and delighting in her blowing up.

So why do we hate her? Does it reflect on her, or on us?

Edit: Video link has been changed, seems like, and what I had there at first was replaced by some god-awful "Hillary = Hitler" video. My apologies. Unfortunately, I can't find the legit clip anymore, so it's just gone.

Happy Mother's Day:

Happy Mother's Day to all you moms out there.

We certainly enjoyed celebrating our first Mother's Day around here.

Marooned in Realtime

I don't have any idea what led me to it lately, but I found myself wanting to reread Vernor Vinge's Marooned in Realtime, so I finally broke down and did just that. It kept me from working for a few hours, and I caught myself reading it more slowly than I ordinarily would at times, but it's a magnificent, magnificent book.

I noted when I read it the first time that it was a mix of sci-fi and mystery, and to a point, that's true. It goes far beyond that, though, and it now seems limiting to think of it in terms of either "science fiction" or "mystery." Marooned is that rare creation: a book that truly is its own creation and stands as an achievement on its own. The best thing that I can say about it is that it is a deeply human book -- it sounds trite and all, what with brining up images of stirring pathos and depths of feeling and yearnings and ambitions and hatreds and loves and disappointments and hurts and blah blah blah, but that's all there.

More, it's all in there in a way that none of it feels overdone, none of it feels underdone, none of it is cheesy -- it's all somehow just right.

In my mind, a truly great book wants to find out something about what it means to be human; the best fail at doing so, but they fail spectacularly, because they try to show us something about us. Vinge fails spectacularly at showing us what it means to be human, but he does give those of us in realtime a good few clues to go by.

If you've never read this book, go out now, grab a copy of The Peace War so that you get the background for the story, and then just enjoy.

A Nerd's Guide to Music and Pop Culture:

I'm either not nerdy enough (unlikely) or not well enough versed in pop culture (bingo!) to get all of these references, but this is fantastic -- and it leads off with Meatloaf!



Nabbed this from Heather

Interested in the Gender Implications of the 2008 Presidential Race?

Then I've got just the chick for you. She staps a pair on and broadens out her shoulders, puts some bass in her voice, that sort of thing.

I fully expect her to smack me (ideally figuratively) for that, but still, the point is, it's a good blog, I'm told that she'll be more active going forward, and she's thinking about moving to a different host. All good things.

Read and enjoy!

In Defense of Hillary Clinton:

I give Senator Clinton a fair share of crap, because I don't like her, most of her policy positions, her sense of entitlement, or the fact that she behaves too much like Bush. Plenty of legitimate reasons for people to dislike her, plenty of illegitimate reasons that people do, and maybe I blend the two here from time to time. So be it.

That said, however, is America really ready for a female president?

Granted, it's The New Republic, and I sincerely hope that it is in no way representative of the country, but what can be said in defense of this:



The title of the cover article? "Voices in Her Head: Inside Hillaryland's fatal psychodrama."

I almost defy anyone to justify that photo and lead article title -- and it better not be some code for "get her back in the kitchen."

Is it her?

Or is it us?

Thanks for the tip, Amy.

And While We're At The New Republic:

E.J. Dionne weighs in on the Rev. Wright situation.

Great read.

Clearing off the Book Bar a Bit:

This may sound like strange praise, but I enjoyed Bernard Bailyn's The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution so much that I immediately wondered who has tried to improve upon it, rewrite it, or argue against it, and where they might be found, so that I could read them as well. That was the basis of my reaction to this book, which is a monumental achievement and a fantastic read. Anyone interested in American history should read this book at least once; I'd put this on par with Democracy in America in terms of how "must" a read it is. (This means really only that I need to finally get off my duff and finish off DiA myself!).



R. Jonathan Moore's Suing for America's Soul: John Whitehead, the Rutherford Institute, and Conservative Christians in the Courts is apparently narrow in scope, but does an excellent job of taking a single case study to make a point about the greater whole. The extent of its explanatory power was made clear to me when I found myself looking back at it for hints at how to approach a completely unrelated phenomenon -- this either means that I'm woefully off the mark, or that Moore chose his case study and developed his history and argument sufficiently well that it spoke to more than the narrow focus of The Rutherford Institute. I certainly hope it's the latter, and I actually think that is the case. What this book gives, besides a good, concise institutional history and a good, concise location of that institutional history within the scope and sweep of its antecedents, is a glimpse into the workings of the federal courts with regard to First Amendment issues that is easy enough for a non-specialist to grasp, but detailed enough that anyone but a specialist can probably learn something from it (can't speak to whether a specialist would be able to learn from it, being as I'm not a lawyer and all). Readers looking to get more into recent First Amendment issues would do well to include this book alongside God vs. the Gavel or Winnifred Fallers Sullivan's absolutely fantastic The Impossibility of Religious Freedom.

Radio-Controlled Lawn Mowers:

Every so often, you run up against something that makes you think "I'm now one step closer to having 'seen it all.'"

That moment today was when I saw a city worker cutting a swath of grass between the main road and the river using a radio-controlled lawn mower.

...

Seriously?

I'm not sure whether to look at that and think "I want one of those!" or "my god, can people seriously be THAT lazy?"

Marci Hamilton: God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law

Marci Hamilton's God vs. the Gavel is one of a handful of books to have been published in the last few years to seriously consider the problems attendant with the First Amendment's religion clauses. The book is generally successful in clarifying problems, bringing the relevant caselaw into the mix, and then dealing with the questions of fact, of law and of social impact. That said, though, the book does have some flaws that detract from its argument and impact.

I'll lead with the strengths. Hamilton does a good job of putting the relevant issues in the big First Amendment cases into clear language, thus ensuring that the technical details are not beyond her reader. She also structures her arguments, and the book generally, fairly well -- it's easy to see how she moves through the information and pulls the pieces together behind and in front of her as she advances.

Needless to say, though, both of these compliments have moments where they cut the other direction. Hamilton's reduction of the cases to bare essentials occasionally runs the risk of reducing very complicated decisions to taglines, with all of the attendant distortions that accompany this sort of reduction. At the same time, there is an obvious manipulation at work, and the reader undertakes this book as an explication at their own peril. The opening chapters are very explicatory in nature, but they are merely the foregrounding for the argument to follow, and even that exposition is fairly polemic in nature. Make no mistake: this book is an argument, start to finish, and should be read as such. After all, it proceeds from the premise that Americans have a rose-tinted view of religion and institutionally and, generally, personally believe it incapable of harm.

You'd think that with an opening like that, it would be easy to keep the fact that the book is an argument in the forefront of your mind. To Hamilton's credit, this isn't the case; she's a very gifted writer, and seems to have learned well from her courtroom experience how to structure an argument so as to bring you along with the premises before hitting you over the head with the twist later.

The thing that bothered me the most about the book is the somewhat circular nature of the argument. For Hamilton, the legislature is the correct place to determine whether and when religious individuals or institutions are to be exempted from generally applicable laws, not the courts. Fair enough. The book is essentially structured around two "success stories," though, both of which reinforce the role of the legislature in defining those exemptions by relying on the courts as a check on the legislatures when they go too far in exempting religious individuals and institutions from generally applicable laws. Confused yet? There is a balance that needs to be struck, and I find it to be insufficiently nuanced in this book. It is too easy to get blown to one side or the other, sometimes in different directions in different chapters, and I think that a large part of this has to do with Hamilton's desire to write for a more general audience. Had she written a bit more for specialists, I think that she could easily have resolved some of the apparent tensions and contradictions that mar and undercut her argument.

Still, for all its faults, this is a worthwhile read. It's not a top-notch examination of the relevant questions, but it supplements the best of the best well enough. It has much to say, and unloads a lot of information on readers in a very manageable fashion. To repeat my caveat, though, bear in mind always that this is not an exposition, it is an argument before the bench, so to speak. If that is kept in mind, the book can be profitably read and examined.