Thomas Frank on Class and Elitism in American Politics

Thomas Frank, author of What's The Matter With Kansas, a new editorial writer for The Wall Street Journal, and the "inspiration" for Senator Obama's "Bitter" and "Cling" remarks, wrote an interesting column on the problem with "BitterGate:"

But I know one thing with absolute certainty. The media flurry kicked up by Mr. Obama's gaffe powerfully confirms an argument I actually did make: That as they return again to the culture war, what the soldiers on all sides are doing is talking about class without actually addressing the economic basis of the subject.

Frank describes the complaints against Senator Obama as an attack on his "sensibilities," leaving him open to be attacked as an Intellectual (George Will), a Marxist (William Kristol), or an Anthropologist (Maureen Dowd). By providing presence to the attitude we can avoid examining the actual economic policies that ensure that people are elite. Instead, we focus only on attitudes.
The editorial attacks both the left and the right for overlooking the actually economic argument in contemporary American politics. Liberals, according to Frank, "perfume themselves with the essence of honest toil" to show solidarity but support programs that perpetuate the elite divide and deny that people could be bitter as, "That there is no place for such sentiment in the Party of the People."

Conservatives forget the democratic pretense and live for the bitterness: "hey have welcomed it, they have flattered it, they have invited it in with millions of treason-screaming direct-mail letters, they have given it a nice warm home on angry radio shows situated up and down the AM dial. There is not only bitterness out there; there is a bitterness industry." Yet, even though there is bitterness, economic equality will not develop from this spectrum.

It seems that Frank's candidate is not Senator Obama per se as his thoughts appear closer to supporting John Edwards. Unfortunately, while Edwards raised the class issue, one, very few bought his message and, two, he lacked some level of authenticity to pursue it, though his announcement message in New Orleans was excellent, even if highly staged. Here is the way the article ends:

The landmark political fact of our time is the replacement of our middle-class republic by a plutocracy. If some candidate has a scheme to reverse this trend, they've got my vote, whether they prefer Courvoisier or beer bongs spiked with cough syrup. I don't care whether they enjoy my books, or would rather have every scrap of paper bearing my writing loaded into a C-47 and dumped into Lake Michigan. If it will help restore the land of relative equality I was born in, I'll fly the plane myself.

The article is highly worth the five-minute read, especially as it implicates both parties in contemporary politics.

Big Day Tomorrow

To prepare for tomorrow's Pennsylvania primary, I suggest that all readers of the Rhetorical Situation head over to the Onion's page of PA coverage. Information abounds, most notably the following:

Pennsylvania and Ohio are usually compared to one another because they are both key hellhole states.

While the area's steel industry has struggled financially in recent years, it still wields a certain amount of influence over delegates who are suspended above vats of molten lead.

Pennsylvania has 188 Democratic delegates up for grabs, down from 211 following a tragic mine collapse in 2005.

Philadelphia, the state's largest city, is famous for its delicious, disgusting, delicious food.

Pennsylvania's late-April primary has traditionally been symbolic of the goddamn primary season almost being over.

Also useful are the site's issue pages, which cite, for example, Obama's position on abortion--" Did some crazy shit in the '80's, not going to lie"--Clinton's position on the economy--"We need to create new jobs in this country—green collar jobs that can help our economy and our environment. And I'd like to point out that that's my term—'green collar' jobs. See, I can come up with exciting phrases"--and McCain's position on foreign affairs--"Will not meet with with leaders of unfriendly states, unless it's to give them a head's up that the United States is about to bomb them."

Outsourcing in America

Following up on Supa's post on toxic toys made in China, I have been thinking a lot about outsourcing recently. Most of these thoughts manifest themselves when I must call the phone company or the credit card company. It seems that I, inevitably, end up talking to someone who is clearly not in this country, who doesn't speak English particularly well, and who is often unable to help me at all, especially when my problem deviates from the script the person on the other line has been given. My feelings about outsourcing are complex and varied. I really believe that many Americans simply do not want these jobs, and thus, as these are jobs that need to be filled, American companies have to outsource them. Outsourcing, of course, benefits corporate America in lots of ways--cheaper services + charging their customers the same prices=bigger profits. From their standpoint it is a no-brainer. From a customer service standpoint, outsourcing causes lots of problems.

Mr. M and I recently combined our phone, internet, and cable into one bill (yes, we decided to "bundle" all of these services), and I was told that the cable company would contact the phone company to turn off our phone line but I needed to contact the phone company to terminate our DSL service. I did all of this, but for months I continued to receive bills for DSL services that I had canceled and was no longer using. Every month I called the phone company and spoke with multiple people, each time my account was credited the amount they said I owed, and I was assured the account was closed. I was given confirmation numbers each time. With each phone call, I was bounced around the world, and I initially always spoke with some one who was clearly not American. Once this people realized I did not have a run of the mill problem they were wholly unable to help me. Each time I was transferred multiple times, and the problem was not resolved until I demanded to speak to a manager, who was then able to figure out the problem, put in the proper override codes (which makes me think that these companies intentionally make it difficult to cancel accounts), and cancel my account.

Here is my question: is outsourcing really so cost effective? My problem, which I would argue was aggravated by the fact that the initial employees were not prepared to deal with such a complicated problem and the fact that no one in these companies is cross trained (they have a separate department for everything, so I had to speak to someone about canceling the account and someone about crediting my account the amount the company said I owed), took over 5 hours during 4 separate phone calls to be resolved. Each time I spoke to at least 4 people. The $31 a month the company continued to charge me was barely enough to cover what these individuals earned in the amount of time they spent trying to correct this problem. Surely there has to be more cost effective way (and one that promotes better customer service) for companies to handle these sorts of issues.

Just in time for Mother's Day!

A new children's book, called My Beautiful Mommy, explains mommy's plastic surgery to kids--to "ease their fears." Seriously. I suppose it's a good idea, given the prevalence of cosmetic surgery these days, but it also teaches kids from a very young age that physical beauty is so important that we should go under the knife to achieve it. My favorite part, I think, is the mother's fantasy of being crowned Miss Beautiful Mommy in image #3--sets a great example for her daughter.

The Feminist Case against Hillary Clinton

Eons ago in the campaign, January to be exact, Gloria Steinem wrote an Op-Ed in The New York Times making the case for Senator Hillary Clinton.

In the Telegraph (UK), Camille Paglia argues the feminist case against Hillary Clinton. This argument attacks Senator Clinton's experience and competence arguments.

Whatever her official feminist credo, Hillary's public career has glaringly been a subset to her husband's success. Despite her reputation for brilliance, she failed the Washington, DC bar exam. Thus her migration to Little Rock was not simply a selfless drama for love; she was fleeing the capital where she had hoped to make her mark.

In Little Rock, every role that Hillary played was obtained via her husband's influence - from her position at the Rose Law Firm to her seat on the board of Wal-Mart to her advocacy for public education reform. In a pattern that would continue after Bill became president, Hillary would draw attention by expressing public "concern" for a problem, without ever being able to organise a programme for reform.

Hillary has always been a policy wonk, a functionary attuned to bureaucratic process, but she has never shown executive ability, which makes her quest for the presidency problematic. Hillary's disastrous botching of national healthcare reform in 1993 (a project to which her husband rashly appointed her) will live in infamy. Obama may also have limited executive experience, but he has no comparable stain on his record.

The argument, therefore, that Hillary's candidacy marks the zenith of modern feminism is specious. Feminism is not well served by her surrogates' constant tactic of attributing all opposition to her as a function of entrenched sexism. Well into her second term as a US Senator, Hillary lacks a single example of major legislative achievement. Her career has consisted of fundraising, meet-and-greets and speeches around the world expressing support for women's rights.

In the article, Paglia differentiates between the claims of sexism or misogyny against Senator Clinton and the claims against her abilities as a lawyer and politician, which have been muddled together on the campaign trail. It also juxtaposes her "anti-male" tone (boys clubs) with how she benefited from her husband.

Like Carl Berstein's piece against Senator Clinton, this seems personal. But, attacks on judgment and ability can be. Another Slate article, "For Better or for Worse," examines the marriage between Hillary and Bill reads the same way. The Slate article is good though as it attempts to explain how politics works as the bridge between the two.

But, does this just seem as another attempt to explain at how a group votes, or ought to vote, without considering a lot of other relevant information? How can one make a "feminist" case for or against a candidate? It makes solid points against Senator Clinton but that is all.

And just, think, in two days, Senator Clinton will win Pennsylvania and these Op-Eds will continue for at least another two weeks.

Hell, Yeah! (Or a Follow-Up to Carme Chacon)

Thanks, Supa, for alerting us to Spain's new Defense Minister. Since our discussion began, she has traveled to Afghanistan to review Spain's troops there. I think she's a superstar for taking the criticism in stride and getting on with the business of her new job. The linked article is interesting, however, for three major reasons:

1. Far from "silencing" critics, as the article claims, Chacon had to answer many questions regarding the safety of her unborn child on a trip like this:

The unannounced trip was criticised by some for potentially putting her child at risk. But Ms Chacon said her pregnancy was an easy one, and told journalists during a two-hour stopover in Kuwait "that she would never put her child's future at risk". Asked if she was tired by the 10-hour flight from Madrid, she replied; "The election campaign was harder, and longer".

2. The article notes that Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero received lots of criticism last week after appointing a mostly female cabinet. The most notable comments were summarized in the piece:

Comments by Italy's new President Silvio Berlusconi about Spain's cabinet being "too pink" and "difficult to control", coupled with photos of him aiming an imaginary gun at a female journalist, have produced incredulity and derision among Spaniards.

These comments were also interesting and troubling:

"Chacon moves on to the attack in Afghanistan," wrote the daily ABC, a conservative newspaper that a week ago had sneered at Mr Zapatero's "battalion of seamstresses".

"Chacon fulfilled her role as Defence Minister, and showed she could command the armed forces despite her circumstances," wrote the male reporter in the equally conservative El Mundo newspaper. "The soldiers said they were delighted with her; not one made any criticism.

3. Finally, I was amused and disturbed by the article's description of Chacon's clothing and attitude as she met with Spanish troops:

The minister wore a white smock, loose trousers and military boots, and was serious and relaxed, according to journalists who traveled with her. At no point did she affect a military air as she received salutes from the troops.

The Performance of Reproductive Rights

Since a few posts this week have addressed reproductive rights and a few have addressed art, I found a story that combines the two. I have been reading around this post for a few days now and, for some reason, I finally decided to clink on the link. Here is the story.

For her senior project, Aliza Shvarts, Yale Art student, documented a nine-month process whereby she inseminated herself and then took miscarriage inducing drugs. She then filmed certain aspects of the exercise and the film will debut this week. There have been some conflicting reports on the details. For example, a report from The New York Sun states she only took herbal medicine and she seems sketchy on other aspects of the story.

According to Shvarts, she believes "strongly that art should be a medium for politics and ideologies, not just a commodity." Here is her description of the project:

For the past year, I performed repeated self-induced miscarriages. I created a group of fabricators from volunteers who submitted to periodic STD screenings and agreed to their complete and permanent anonymity. From the 9th to the 15th day of my menstrual cycle, the fabricators would provide me with sperm samples, which I used to privately self-inseminate. Using a needleless syringe, I would inject the sperm near my cervix within 30 minutes of its collection, so as to insure the possibility of fertilization. On the 28th day of my cycle, I would ingest an abortifacient, after which I would experience cramps and heavy bleeding.

To protect myself and others, only I know the number of fabricators who participated, the frequency and accuracy with which I inseminated and the specific abortifacient I used. Because of these measures of privacy, the piece exists only in its telling. This telling can take textual, visual, spatial, temporal and performative forms — copies of copies of which there is no original.

This piece — in its textual and sculptural forms — is meant to call into question the relationship between form and function as they converge on the body. The artwork exists as the verbal narrative you see above, as an installation that will take place in Green Hall, as a time-based performance, as a independent concept, as a myth and as a public discourse.

It creates an ambiguity that isolates the locus of ontology to an act of readership. An intentional ambiguity pervades both the act and the objects I produced in relation to it. The performance exists only as I chose to represent it. For me, the most poignant aspect of this representation — the part most meaningful in terms of its political agenda (and, incidentally, the aspect that has not been discussed thus far) — is the impossibility of accurately identifying the resulting blood. Because the miscarriages coincide with the expected date of menstruation (the 28th day of my cycle), it remains ambiguous whether the there was ever a fertilized ovum or not. The reality of the pregnancy, both for myself and for the audience, is a matter of reading.

This ambivalence makes obvious how the act of identification or naming — the act of ascribing a word to something physical — is at its heart an ideological act, an act that literally has the power to construct bodies. In a sense, the act of conception occurs when the viewer assigns the term “miscarriage” or “period” to that blood.

According to Associated Content, a University Spokesperson- the academic analogy to some say-- declared this was a hoax. The artists disagrees though she is unsure if she procured any miscarriages.

There seem to be quite a few points about this, ethical, aesthetic, and academic. If this story were true and not fictional, what would be the ethical standard for her audience to judge the performance? While the purpose of her piece makes sense (the last paragraph and not the other incoherent paragraphs), there are certainly other means to make this point. Of course, this would reduce her argument only to the shock value and emotional content of her piece.

Second, does this work advance the dialogue and debate of the abortion debate? While certainly provocative, The New Republic notes that this piece of art does not advance the pro-choice argument because it removes the safety and privacy aspects of the debate.

Finally, I would add that in terms of a debate, this performance art would offer the same effect as the large photos of fetuses from the pro-life group, Justice for All. Both "performative acts" apply the same appeal to pity fallacy in which the emotional aspect of the message cuts of debate on the topic. When relying on fallacies, it seems that dialogue won't advance. Consequently, her advancement of a political discourse would fail as no one outside her own community would engage her debate.

Paperweight writer, I expect your full attention on this post...

WTF?

Today I went to Target to stock on some essentials and to replace Supadiscotoddler's sippy cups, which are, apparently, poisonous. Strolling past the toy section, I noticed a display of inexpensive little toys, and I grabbed a package of three small bouncy balls--mini-soccer ball, mini-baseball, mini-basketball--because Supadiscotoddler loves him some balls (save your comments, dirty minds). Upon arriving home, Supadiscotoddler set to work bouncing the balls all over the house. Almost simultaneously, Supadiscodaddy and I noticed the smell of gasoline in the house. The source of the smell, it seemed, were the bouncy balls. Obviously, toys reeking of gasoline are not ideal. I checked the package for more info: "Made in China" was all it said. We distracted Supadiscobaby and were able to throw the balls away. So, I ask you, what the fuck? Why is it that, all of a sudden, we're discovering that everything our kids play with or drink out of or eat off of may be toxic?

In Support of the Reverend

Alright a little art lesson for you today: now to support the Reverend who finds P-duck's image disgusting, which one of you brainy-acts can tell me why I posted this image by David, "The Death of Marat" in relationship to P's image and to M's van der Weyden???? Trust me, the answer relates to the tenets of the TRS.

Sorry for the extended absence folks but been job hunting--think I got one but more to follow about the ordeals of academic job searches!

A Follow-up on Motherhood vs. Career

Apparently the citizens of Alaska do not ask the same questions of their governor that the citizens of Spain ask their Defense Minister.

Military Analysis and the development of Public Opinion

In tomorrow's New York Times, there is a very long article discussing the way in which the Pentagon employs "analysis" in an attempt to sell specific policies.

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.

The dangerous aspects of this is the way in which certain ideological perspectives establish certain cultures and policies. And all of this depends on the manipulation of information.

In theory, the Times study is not anything new. Noam Chomsky is most likely laughing at this article. Or cringing.

Motherhood vs. Career

MSNBC.com has an interesting article on Spain's (pregnant) defense minister.

I apologize for all of the lame link-only posts, but that's all I've got to give these days :)

Obama: Pro-Choice?

See this post at Bitch, Ph.D.

To follow the trend set by Harrogate, here is one of my favorite pieces...

Debate 21: Round Two: You mean there are some policy questions involved?

Round Two focused on Iran & Iraq, The Economy, The Second Amendment (because of Virginia Tech & the D.C. Case), Affirmative Action, Gas Prices, The Use of Ex Presidents, & Making Your Case to Super Delegates.

Iran and Iraq: Senator Obama did well on Iraq and Iran. As to when to withdraw, Senator Clinton attempted invoked the “Civilian Control” of the military but has little knowledge in this area (as most civilians do), meaning how can she ask the generals to leave when then present her with conflicting information. Senator Obama’s message was more direct (for the first time in this debate) “The Commander in Chief sets the mission,” which allows for input from the Generals. Senator Clinton comes across as the tougher, hawkish candidate, who will exceed constitutional authority; Senator Obama, better judgment. The question remains, who do you trust to get us in and out of war?

The Economy: Tax cuts for you, not for the rich. Obama ups the ante with a payroll tax cut. Capital Gain Taxes will increase. Can’t take out a credit card from the Bank of China (good metaphor.) The right will attack Obama endlessly on the Capital Gains Tax though Hillary will raise them as well but only to a certain point. Do the middle class voters of Pennsylvania actually care about the Capital Gains Tax?

The Second Amendment: They have the same position: Clinton wants “sensible” legislation; Obama, “Common sense,” though, because of word choice, Obama basis his argument on traditional standards. Overall, draw, though I hear, from my apartment, Justices Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and Kennedy laughing to themselves. The GOP wins this question.

Affirmative-Action: Both candidates need to make this a class issue and then end it. Say “Even the poor deserves an education.” Clinton wins this question.

Gas Prices: Not much can be done on this issue. Sorry, $4.00/ gallon sucks. However, $5.00 is worse. Any alternatives? Nope.

How would you use ex-President? On a SNL skit…. End of story. No points awarded.

Final Question: how will you make your case to the Super Delegates? Disregard their answers as they will make their case however they choose, right Bill Richardson? No points awarded.

Their answers: Senator Clinton is a fighter and, if you believe that the Democrats need a fighter, Senator Clinton is you choice. If you desire the red/ blue game, choose her. Senator Obama argued that politics is about empowerment and building from the ground up; if desire a post-partisan country, even for a few years, Senator Obama is your candidate.

Score:
GOP: 5 (2nd Amendment, No Super Delegates, Iran)
Senator Clinton: 7 (Minus 1 for Iraq)
Senator Obama: 6 (Minus 1 for AA, Economy)

The GOP wins, as even though they tied Senator Clinton in points, they did not debate. Anytime you win while sitting on the sidelines, you win. Senator Clinton takes second place.

As for Senator Obama, good luck in North Carolina. Unless you hope for a Clinton/ New Hampshire backlash, you'll fare better in another venue. Also, I would avoid ABC in the future.

One A Side Note:
There were no questions on Global Warming/ Environment, Torture, Interrogation Techniques, Supreme Court Justices, Health Care, Education, Executive Authority, Israel/ Palestine, Spreading Democracy, Darfur, Alternative Energy, Michigan and Florida… etc. Oh well, Flag Pins are important.

Debate 21: Round One- Hey, Anyone Have a Life Vest?

When I first looked at the candidates, I swore I saw Fred Armisen and Amy Poehler. But, I digress…

Welcome to out 23,432 installment of better know a candidate. In this segment, we will focus on who holds the anchor. Who ever holds it for the longest, loses. Senator Obama, you held the anchor for much too long in the debate and, you lost.

The questions in debate number #21 were much tougher than recent debates, as were the follow ups. But this does not mean that they were better or address important topics, especially to the voters of Pennsylvania.

The first section focused on the Dream Ticket, Bitter-Gate, Jeremiah Wright, Bosnia, William Ayers (a member of The Weather Underground), and a Flag-Pin, which as you can imagine, these topics favor Senator Clinton. ABC attempted to use snippets of the Constitution throughout. However, the first question showed the futility of this approach and the debate. Moderator Charlie Gibson asked the two candidates about a Dream Ticket, invoking the idea that the Original Constitution stated that the person that received the most votes would be president, the second most, VP. Of Course, this question was predicated on a portion of the Constitution that was amended via the 12^th Amendment. If you don't know the Constitution, don't ask questions based on it.

Here is a recap: The Unity question, at the beginning, flopped and left the candidates with an uncomfortable silence. The moderators hit Obama hard on “Bittergate,” Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers from the Weather Underground, and Flag Pins. Senator Clinton hit Obama hard on these topics, throwing him an anchor every chance she could get. Obama responded, as best as he could, by trying to focus on the issues, which is surprising that a candidate would want to address the issues. When the media asks a question about the patriotism of a candidate, no one wins.

Senator Clinton got hit hard on losing a voter over Bosnia, though she admitted she made a mistake and moved forward. On the downside, she admitted she had baggage and acknowledged that President Clinton pardoned two members of The Weather Underground. On the plus side, she sat back and watched Obama drown, making her case to the Super Delegates through silence. When necessary, she provided good answers. Smart Move.

Obama attempted to argue these questions were just politics as usual and we needed to move forward and out of these petty issues to solve our issues (Iraq, Health Care, Economy). Senator Clinton argued that the Democrats needs a fighter and attacked Obama, showing the Super Delegates that his is unelectable because of Guilt by Association. If this were true, neither can win in November.

End of Round One: The Score (Two points for each question, 12 max)
GOP: 12
Clinton: 8 (Minus for Dream Ticket, Bosnia, and Baggage.)
Obama: 3 (Plus for feistiness, going easy on Bosnia, & surviving; otherwise, it would be a 0)

It will be interesting to see what degree Bitter, Wright, Ayers, Bosnia, & the Flag-Pin continue after this debate. Also, can Hillary use the "Obama can't win argument" any longer as she has denounced it? What about Obama standing up to criticism?

And for the umpteenth time, there will be no Unity Ticket.

Another of my favorites

It comes to no surprise to my fellow Situationers that I love art, but few paintings have elicited a physical reaction from me. Roger van der Weyden's The Deposition is so beautiful that I cried when I saw it in person. van der Weyden, a Northern Renaissance painter, puts the viewer on the same plan as Christ being deposed from the cross. The viewer is the same size as all of the figures in the painting, and from where it is hung in the Prado, I was at eye level with the Virgin Mary. I could easily read the painting as a commentary on grief and mourning, but I'd rather just share the beauty with my friends.

Bringing in a little "low" art; because I can

James Gillray; The Fashionable Mamma; or the Convenience of Modern Dress (1796)

Because I Don't Want to Be Left Out

Because Harrogate did it

Just 'cause

Pennsylvania, the New Texas

On April 22nd, Senator Clinton will most likely win the Democratic Primary in the Keystone State. Polls vary, but Real Clear Politics shows that in Quinnipiac she is up by 6% and, in Survey USA, she leads by 16%.

Yet, there is another angle to this story. Because this is a Democratic primary and, we know that Democrats adhere to fairness above equality, CQ Politics examines the congressional districts and argues that Clinton will take 53 pledged delegates to Senator Obama's 50. Like Texas, some areas receive more delegates than others.

The 103 district-level delegates are not distributed evenly. Democratic-leaning congressional districts are awarded more delegates than Republican-leaning districts. The state’s 2nd District, a Democratic bastion centered in Philadelphia, has nine district delegates to divvy up among Clinton and Obama. The heavily Republican 9th District, in the south-central part of the state, has just three.

Pennsylvania has 84 other delegates, divided between Super Delegates (29), at-large pledged delegates (35), and PLEOs (20) [a PLEO is a Pledged (Party) Leader or Elected Official]. It is this last category that Senator Clinton did not fill out a full ballot for before the deadline. According to a diary on MYDD, the at-large would split 20 - 15 Clinton and the PLEOs 12 - 8.

While I do not know how the Supers will split-- CNN reports the current Super split is, Clinton 14, Obama 5-- her pledged delegate pickup will be +11.

Combined, she will pick up 25 delegates, with 14 Supers undecided.

If she were to win the nomination, a 25 delegate pickup will not help as she is down by over 140 according to MSNBC, and this is her best chance to pick up delegates. She should do well in Puerto Rico (63) and Kentucky (60). However, Of course, Senator Obama will win North Carolina (134) and should win Oregon (65).

In the other states, Clinton will win the majority in West Virginia (39 total), Kentucky (60), while Senator Obama will win the majority in Guam (9), Montana (25), and South Dakota (23).

Indiana is the wild-card with 85 delegates and polls show this is close, meaning they will most likely split most of the delegates, leaving the winner only to pick up a few.

Senator Clinton will need to make her case to the Super Delegates through the popular vote, If that were the case, she would need at least to net 300,000 from Pennsylvania. Of course, you could make the "electibility," [who has a better shot of beating Senator McCain] if you dehistoricize the polls and ask the Super Delegates to choose within discerning what will happen or choose the nominee as late as possible, i.e. The Convention. Yet, this means you lose at least four months (May - August) to begin the fall campaign, which will hurt either candidate's ability to win in November. Is that irony?

I am starting to have other thoughts about the Democratic Primary: it is just a clever game based on Inoculation theory. I've had a feeling about this since March but I will have more on this later. However, if this were the case, then the Democrats would be serious about winning the election and would be smart about it. And, for some reason, I cannot believe this it is the case that they could play people like this as it may require a sophisticated level of coordination and organization not known to the Democratic Party.

Typo in Time

Time has listed the five best blogs and, somehow, the Situation was left off the list. In case you'd like to check out numbers two through six, here they are:

• The Huffington Post
• Lifehacker
• Metafilter
• Treehugger
• Postsecret

Enjoy.

Shallow But Frightening Thoughts

Is there a class of men among us in America who, were they to ever perceive the presence of a choice between a world Dominated by the United States and no world at all, would choose no world at all?

And if this class is among us, who are they? Does this class of men have any stroke in either major political Party? Does their likeness appear in any of the three Presidential candidates? etc.

For what it is worth Harrogate feels it is a cop-out to invoke the caricature of the "Endtimes" driven Social Conservative/Evangelical at this juncture. That is a separate issue, and for Harrogate's money, more founded in illusion than in fact.

Indeed. The most striking thing about Social/Religious Conservatives is that they draw off all the most precious imaginative energy of liberal Americans. We are so busy warning against this "element" that we don't seem to notice that the far more dangerous eco-cons have by now almost totally closed the circuit on our republic. Witness the fact that so many people, even after all that has happened with the country, conceive of George W. Bush in primnarily in terms of social conservatism.

But anywho. Perhaps even the eco-cons ought to be mildly freaked by the questions Harrogate poses above.

Yes. Some might argue that the questions are hysterical ones in the first place. And, perhaps they are.

(Although, the Wars keep mounting, the shit-talking keeps escalating, and even those few among us who cared enough to do anything about it, wouldn't know where to begin. Blogging from one's study, for example, probably aint making much headway).

Where does your money go?

From The New Republic, a look at where your tax money goes. As the brief article states, it is always helpful to known how the government uses our tax money, especially when politicians call for cutting spending and cutting taxes.

And, of course, the song of the day, "Taxman" by The Beatles.

Response by Clinton Supporter

Sunday, I posted The Case Against Senator Clinton. If you are interested, here is the response.

It seems the article by Carl Bernstein did not sit well with the Clinton camp. Lanny Davis, a Clinton supporter, fundraiser, or former Clinton lawyer, provided a response on CNN.

Davis attempts to minimize Berstein's argument by characterizing all of them as personal attacks without any facts and to suggest that Berstein uses the same methods he accuses of the Clintons without applying the standards to Senator Obama.

Visual Irony...

I decided to take a break from grading and visited The New York Times website. When I arrived, I saw this photo for the headline, "McCain Calls Obama Remarks Elitist."



While the photo looks straight out of Bat-Man, either the 1960s TV show or the lame, non-Tim Burton movies, because of the angles. I could not help to notice the irony of McCain, who appears as if he is pounding his fists on the podium while standing next to a very large projection of himself to his right. And since all Americans possess this ability and technology, the elitism label escapes him.

But, more importantly, if McCain were on Bat-Man, what would his villain name be? The other candidates?

Congratulations to Bret Michaels

Last night on the season finale of Rock of Love II, he found his soul mate . . . again!! Here's to Bret and his rock of love Amber.


For the record, the above picture is Bret, not Amber. (Her tattoo is on her left arm.)

The Case Against Hillary Clinton

I posted earlier on Senator Obama. Here is one for Senator Clinton.

"What a Clinton Presidency Would Look Like," by Carl Bernstein, Watergate discoverer, as if he found the hotel, & Clinton biography, for A Woman In Charge: the Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

It portrays her as a fighter, as anyone would expect. Yet, the article also makes the case that the fighter ethos harms her:

In fact, the demotion of Penn –- like the departure of Hillary’s acolyte Patty Solis Doyle as campaign manager –- is a confession that, for all her claims of “experience” and leadership abilities, Hillary Clinton has now presided over two disastrous national enterprises, the most important professional undertakings of her adult life, both of which she began with ample wind at her back: the healthcare reform of her husband’s presidency, and now her own campaign for the White House. These two failures -– and the demonizing of her opponents in both instances –- may be the best indication of the kind of President she would be, especially when confronted (inevitably) by unanticipated difficulty and/or entrenched opposition to her ideas and programs.

It is exactly under such circumstances that she usually resorts to the worst excesses that mark her in full warrior-mode — and all its scorched-earth, truth-be-damned manifestations. Bosnia, anyone? Smearing the women involved (or even thought to be involved) sexually with her husband. Responding to Barack Obama with the same mindset, disdain, and arsenal as she did Karl Rove and Lee Atwater, as if Obama’s politics and methodologies were as mendacious and vicious as theirs–and her own. Tax information kept secret (in 1992 to hide her profits from trading in cattle futures; in 2008 to shield the identities of Bill’s foreign clients.) A campaign that openly boasts of throwing “the kitchen sink” at her opponent.

This article is far more personal than the Politico article against Senator Obama as it attacks Senator Clinton on her strengths, in addition to her failure to learn from her mistakes, judgment on Iraq and her pandering, which Berstein suggests that she l0oathed this approach by Republicans, on such issues such as Flag Burning.

It also points to a mistake made by the Clinton campaign: the star-power as a Democrat developed with her changed demeanor in the Senate. A New Yorker article from January discussed this same theme. Of course, it is the campaign's failure to recognize this and, consequently, they lost enormous opportunity to increase her appeal.

Yet, the Clintons have a high floor. The attacks in the article carries weight with those who find themselves against the Clintons or undecided. Consequently, this article will just be another example of media unfairness or anti-Clinton bias.

Essentially, if you choose the Clintons, you know you will get a fighter who has some experience in the White House; however, as the article suggests, the fighter ethos may be the problem and the ghosts never stop haunting the House of Clinton.

Team Building Exercise, or, I learned it from watching Mr. VP

Any suggestions for a better team-building exercise? From The Washington Post:

No one really disputes that Chad Hudgens was waterboarded outside a Provo office park last May 29, right before lunch, by his boss.

There is also general agreement that Hudgens volunteered for the "team-building exercise," that he lay on his back with his head downhill, and that co-workers knelt on either side of him, pinning the young sales rep down while their supervisor poured water from a gallon jug over his nose and mouth.

And it's widely acknowledged that the supervisor, Joshua Christopherson, then told the assembled sales team, whose numbers had been lagging: "You saw how hard Chad fought for air right there. I want you to go back inside and fight that hard to make sales."

My Favorite line from the article is: "I don't know if this would even be an issue if it weren't for Guantanamo Bay," Brunt said. Sure, other than Guantanamo Bay, there is nothing wrong with the act.

On Being Chris Matthews

There is an interesting, albeit long, piece from The New York Times on Chris Matthews. I think that the piece is interesting for three reasons. First, the politics within NBC News seems quite divisive and mostly against Matthews, which means his time there (he has one year left on his contract) is limited. Matthews wants to be on the first team though he won't be. He faces threat from those under him, Olbermann and Gregory.

Second, the historicism of Matthews: Matthew is an element of a much different time and possesses a different sense of order, which makes for his comments about women as being awkward to say the least. It is interesting to see how one generation attempts to correct the errors of the past generation and hold the prior generation liable for their sins. I think we judge the news by left/ right etc., i.e. MSNBC or Fox, NPR or Talk Radio; yet, we often forget other important contextual factors such as historical context of the reporters...

Finally, it is interesting how we use Matthews. As the article states, Democrats love him as he stood up against Iraq, the Bush Administration, and other conservatives such as Michelle Malkin; yet, Democrats reject him because his is interpreted as being sexist, anti-Clinton, and a loose-cannon, as well as constantly interjecting himself into the story.

There is some speculation that when his contract expires, he will either move to another network or reenter politics in Pennsylvania. The article suggests the second and Mathews seems to support the conclusion at times.

In Case Your Interested: The Case Against Senator Obama

As I have done before, here is the recent case against the Super Delegates choosing Senator Obama as the Democratic nominee. I have also posted the cases against Senator Clinton here and here.

From Politico:

The concerns revolve around two themes.

The first is based on the campaign so far. Assuming voting patterns evident in the nominating contest continue into the fall, Obama would be vulnerable if McCain can approximate the traditional GOP performance in key states.

The second is based on fear about the campaign ahead.

Stories about Obama’s Chicago associations with 1960s radicals Bernardine Dohrn and William Ayers landed with barely a ripple. So, too, did questions about whether he once backed a total ban on handguns (he says no but in a 1996 state legislative race his campaign filled out a questionnaire saying yes). Obama’s graceful handling of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy may have turned that into a net positive against Clinton.

I suggest reading the entire article as it raises some serious concerns. However, the concerns it raises against Senator Obama would be true for Senator Clinton. All three candidates remaining are strong; yet, all have fatal flaws. It depends on which poison you desire.

At Swampland, Joe Klein offers three, (I mean two sire) counter-arguments:

1.) Obama is a terrific politician and, compared to John McCain, he will have some distinct advantages--namely that his description of the country's problems, and his proposed solutions, will be closer to what Americans actually want than McCain's will be...

2.) Clinton isn't exactly a strong alternative. She's really offended a crucial Democratic constituency: African-Americans. She would bring out Republican voters in droves....

Klein adds that the argument that though Clinton supporters argue she has faced the right wing and won, she has not dealt with her baggage in the primary and the American voting public has yet to relive the ideological battles and political scandals of the 1990s, let alone the issues that developed with the Clintons from 2001 and on, such as donations to the Presidential Library and the pardons. In the past few weeks we just initiated the NAFTA debates and the connections to Columbia, which do not sit well for Senator Clinton. And this would be just the beginning.

A few side notes:
Now that we are getting closer to Pennsylvania, and the debate is this Wednesday, the full court press is back on. According to Ben Smith at Politico, the papers are covering the "bitter remarks" but the editorial boards are sticking with him.

I never realized about the Republican ties to Politico until writing this piece.

"No Pox on My House!!!"

Take that Bo-Sox fans. You cannot curse the House next to the House that Ruth Built.

Oh, and by the way, Megs, Sweet Baby J, and I went to our first Yankees game last Sunday. More importantly, Sweet Baby J ate her first hot dog. (And, yes, this is A-Rod at bat.)

If you don't care about the election....

Don't worry, there are other things that exist by man that may kill you.

In June, scientists in Switzerland will use, for the first time, the particle accelerator known as Large Hadron Collider (LHC), to create a black hole to study its effects. No, I am wrong. The scientists will attempt to replicate the conditions before the Big Bang and, by doing so, they may create a small black hole or two. The scientists promise that even if they create small black holes, they will be malignant, no wait, I mean benign.

The New York Times has the scoop, and an editorial against it, kind of but not really. And don't worry, there is a law suit against the use of the LHC, which means its operation status is in the hands of some judges, though I think the judge in Hawaii lacks the authority to stop scientists in Switzerland.

Governor of NY & the Morning Round Up...

The Chris Matthews Show
David Brooks, on The Chris Matthews Show, floated the idea that Senator Clinton's next job would be Governor of New York. This is not the first time in which the rumor has made its rounds. It also seems reasonable if you believe that she cannot win the primary or the presidency and would no doubt win a NY special election-- if one were to magically occur, somehow arranged, etc--, and her political style of partisanship works in the state of NY and current Gov. David Patterson may not be working out, especially with his "admissions" once in office and the failure of recent legislation.

The interesting question would be would the Clintons desire Senator Clinton becomming Governor Clinton? Currently, Senator Clinton and former President Clinton believe that only they can save the democrats from the "disaster in waiting" this fall as "naive democrats" don't see it and the media won't tell it.

Further, if the Democratic primary is about the legacy of the Clintons, then this may not be desirable choice. If the argument is that Senator Obama wins the presidency then he will diminish the legacy of President Clinton, wouldn't this also mean that Senator Clinton would diminish the legacy of the former President. On one hand, If Senator Clinton wins the primary and the presidency, then the family enhances its legacy. On the other, if she wins, she may diminish the legacy of former President Bill Clinton, especially if Senator Clinton becomes a better President than Bill, which would not be too hard as the bar if very low.

Meet The Press: w/ Carville, Matalin, Murphy, and Shrum
The first fifteen minutes of Meet the Press is quite hostile over Senator Obama's "bitter" remarks and other famous "gaffes" in the campaign: Obama and "cling;" McCain, the economy, and the Sunni/ Shi'ite distinction, Senator Clinton on Bosnia, former President Clinton on Hillary's Bosnia experience. James Carville was put in an interesting position as he attacked Obama for his comments, then attacked McCain about his comments on not knowing the economy, the Sunni/ Shi'ite mishap, which will be thrown against McCain, and then attempted to defend the comments by the Clintons over Bosnia, laughing while doing so as he knew he no longer possessed the legitimacy to attack Obama and knew the Clintons were in trouble. Carville could only offer his love for former President Bill Clinton, "I love the man."

Senator Obama's gaffe is just one of many by the candidates and may not prove to be the "representative anecdote" that hurts him in the long run, though he will suffer before Pennsylvania. If he had a chance to win the primary, he may not now, though he still may keep it close. Of course, the larger strategy of these comments may be to show how neither Clinton or McCain will improve the lives of those in the Keystone state and as the economy gets worse over the summer with the rise in the cost of gas and food, Senator Obama will look courageous for speaking about the realities in small towns back in April.

There is another interesting element occurring on MTP: the game of the elites, as all of the people on the show are, which makes them look just as foolish to determine the psychological and sociological characteristics of the voters in Pennsylvania (and I understand the irony, as all speculation about the minds of the voters seem foolish). Mary Matalin attacks Obama for his comments, forcing Carville to attack McCain's knowledge on the economy and the Sunni/Shi'ite divide. Yet, despite the ideological differences between Matalin and Carville they do not have any problems reconciling their differences. Where do we reify the ideological differences and why are the elites outside of these manifestations?

Oh, and all of the panelists threw Mark Penn under the bus and attacked the way in which her strategists ran Senator Clinton's campaign, diminishing her ethos as a "manager." After ten minutes of bashing Clinton, they opened the door to bashing Obama again, especially from Mary Matalin, who would like the Democratic Super Delegates to select Senator Clinton. But I cannot understand why?

Finally, a McCain/ Powell ticket and not McCain Romney? Did Carville read the news?

Any news on how Ralph Nader's campaign is developing?

Judging Crediility of the Foreign Press

Open Left has a post, from Kos and The Scotsman, that Former President Jimmy Carter and former V.P. Al Gore will approach Senator Clinton about dropping out of the primary race.

As you remember, The Scotsman is the paper that interviewed Samantha Power where the later called Clinton "A Monster" for election tactics in Ohio, though that story broke through an interview while this developed through reporting. This suggests the paper carries some credibility as it would not allow Powers to recant her statements and ran the story. But, the switch to a interview to a report carries different standards.

If you read Ihe Scotsman article, the information comes from "s source close to Carter" and "insiders say," which may be right up there with "some might say." The editors allowed the report to go through, which means there is a source and editors believe that the source does have close connections to Carter. Yet, still, there is no source named in the entire article.

As for evidence, it suggests that Gore and Carter want to protect the party and the damage done to the party's chances for the general election against McCain. Of course, neither Carter nor Gore are particular warm to the Clinton (which is a very generous statement) and they point to conflicts of interest with the Clintons (donations to the library, Mark Penn, not paying for campaign events, credibility w/anecdotes).

Of course, you can take this information either way as the information in the article seems plausible, however, the bias of Gore and Carter may cause further problems.

It will be interesting to see if this story gains attention this week because it is a foreign source and the credibility of the article seems undetermined at best. With nine days to go to Pennsylvania, if this catches on this may be a way to influence the vote, if there are any undecideds left, as it would show the long term prospects for a Victory for her would not be possible. Of course, with a big win in Pennsylvania, this conversation would die down for a week until the run up to North Carolina.

The July Suprise?

After watching the Senate testimony with General Petraeus, I am not sure if it matters whom the Democratic Super Delegates chose, er, I mean the Democratic voters, select as the Democratic Nominee. In conditions that exist now, I believe that no matter who the nominee is, Senator Obama or Senator Clinton, the odds favor either candidate in becoming the next president, though I do believe one has a better shot because I doubt that the Democrats will win Florida.



But, the question remains, what conditions between now and November will change? The answer to that question is Iran, where are the testimony, the argumentative foundation was laid for attacks on Iran, as Iran is the new al-Qaeda and Iran, according to Gen. Petraeus, is sending money and arms to be used against U.S. troops. In addition, according to The Washington Post, the vice-president visited right wing talk-radio to provide additional bricks: the Iranian leadership consists of apocalyptic zealots who yearn for a nuclear conflagration to bring about conditions for the return of the 12th Imam.

Of course, everyone's favorite intellect, William Kristol, met with President Bush yesterday and the president stated that attacks may not be out of the question. According to the same The Washington Post article: "After suggesting that Iran may 'have to pay some price at some point on their own soil,' Kristol said that President Bush authorizing an attack of some kind before he leaves office is not 'out of the question.'" While this means little, it allows the ghost to remain in the room.

According to Seymour Hersh, the US has been preparing for this for some time. You can read his work in The New Yorker about the U.S.'s policy with Iran from April 2006, July 2006, November 2006, March 2007, October 2007, February 2008. While preparing for a conflict is the responsibility of the military, the similarity between arguments in 2003 and 2008 seem to uncanny.

While there may be legitimate reasons for attacking Iran, (depending on the circumstances), the attacks will no doubt alter the elections in the United States. Attacks ensure that the deliberation about the elections concern Iraq and Iran, which plays to the strengths of Republicans. To expand this conversation means that there is no need to discuss the original war in Iraq and its entailments: the definition of victory, the purpose of the war, and the ability to withdraw (now this is the way to employ heresthetics).

The best part, for Republicans, it that there is very little the Democrats can do about this. If they move to impeach the President if strikes were imminent, then the public support for Democrats will drop. If they wait and do not impeach, then may lose their standing for the November elections and make the election about national security instead of the economy.

This is how one wins elections.

Ending some Speculation...

According to MSNBC, Condi Rice attempted to angle herself for McCain's VP vacancy, though she repeatedly denied it.

Well, you can rule that out now, according to ABC News, unless you want to debate the merits of torture as an effective tool in the War on Terror. And, for some reasons, I do not think McCain wants to have this debate.

Highly placed sources said a handful of top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects -- whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding.

The high-level discussions about these "enhanced interrogation techniques" were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed -- down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.

The advisers were members of the National Security Council's Principals Committee, a select group of senior officials who met frequently to advise President Bush on issues of national security policy.

At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Oh well. I hoped that the US could finally get around to having this conversation though I do not have enough faith that the country would reach the correct results on the issue. The country did reelect President Bush after the torture stories broke.

I guess it is time for the McCain camp to break out the McCain/ Romney stickers after all, especially if the economy is in the gutter.

George is a Monkey...

A few weeks ago, Harrogate talked about the feel-good premise of Clifford, the Big Red Dog. As he tacitly suggests in his post, Emily Elizabeth arguably has the greatest parents in the world, as they happily relocated their family to Birdwell Island after recognizing that their dog Clifford was too large to live in the city.

I would like to continue Harrogate's discussion of children's programming. Specifically, I want to comment upon--or perhaps more accurately, complain about--Curious George. Oxybaby and I watch this cartoon daily; on our PBS channel, it airs right before Clifford. Readers who regularly view this show with their children will mistakenly assume that my complaint is related to the constant re-airing of episodes (the same four or five, it seems) day after day. While this is indeed a concern, today I wish to instead complain about the commentary that follows the cartoon. (Please note that the commentary to which I refer might be specific to my local PBS channel, which features Miss Laurie and a number of preschoolers).

After each episode, a child's voice is heard over the credits. He says, "George is a monkey, so he can do things that we can't." The statement is then elaborated upon. And I always expect that it will focus on things that monkeys can do and that humans cannot: "Because George is a monkey, he can fling pooh at people and not get thrown in jail. People will laugh at his pooh-flinging, as it is socially acceptable--and, frankly, expected--that monkeys engage in such behavior"; or "George is a monkey, so it's cute when he picks fleas off of Hunley [the doorman's dachshund] and eat them; it is not considered gross because monkeys are disgusting animals and gross is, as we know, a relative category."

But instead the child voice-over always describes something that George did from the immediate episode. And each time, it is something that I could do. It is not--I repeat, NOT--something that is enabled purely by virtue of George being a monkey. Last week, for instance, George and Betsy were in a race with Steve to see who could deliver the most mail in a set amount of time. George had the brilliant idea of organizing his parcels numerically by address so that he could deliver them in order as he and Betsy walked down the street. Bill, on the other hand, was running back and forth, back and forth. George's strategy led his team to victory. The voice-over: "George is a monkey, so he can do things that we can't: he put the packages in order...." Come on! I can do that, too.

I give credit where credit is due, so I applaud George. He is a smart monkey who does a lot of good in his community. But let's not put him too high on a pedestal. Most of us humans can do the same things that he does.

A First Amendment Dilemma...Or is it?

This is a very interesting first amendment/ discrimination case that involves the ability of a photographer to select whom she photographs and the ability of a same-sex couple to find a business to photograph their ceremony.

Elaine Huguenin is the co-owner of Elaine Photography in New Mexico. In September of 2006, Vannessa Willock approached Elaine Photography to inquire about her services to photograph Willock's wedding ceremony, which was to be a same-sex marriage ceremony. Huhuenin responded that she only photographed traditional marriages and would not be able to capture the event. When Willock inquired about the meaning of "traditional marriage," Huhuenin responded that we (her and her husband) d0 not "photograph same-sex marriages."

After having her request denied, Willock then filed a complaint under New Mexico Human Rights Act and the New Mexico Human Rights Commission held that this action by Huhuenin violated the act. The photographer was fined $6,637.94 for refusing services.


Now, there are a few competing issues involved with this case.

First, is this a case of discrimination whereby a business, Elaine Photography, refused a customer because the business did not like a characteristic of the customer, which is in a protected class. If your business refused on the account of race, you would face a penalty for this. If a larger business were to deny this, they may not be able to get away with this or even for a family portrait. If you were to apply certain analogies, business and hotels would not be able to deny services based on sexual orientation so why would this photography studio: because it is a smaller business or because its business relates to artistic expression?

Second, do the facts of this case suggest that the photographer has a first amendment right and that no one should be able to force her to accept a job just as no one would be able to force her to write something she did not choose to or speak about something she did not choose? This follows the liberty of conscience argument, which if the first amendment is to mean something, it should mean this. Photographs are artistic expressions, even the mind-numbing wedding photos. While there is no clear precedent for this, if the government cannot make children salute the flag or say the pledge of allegiance, then it would not be unreasonable to suggest that the government cannot force you to take pictures via the New Mexico Human Rights Act. Or is this like the Boy Scouts controversy where the group refused to allow a homosexual to be a troop leader?

Further complicating this is that same-sex marriages are not recognized in New Mexico. This may provide an out for the photographer.

There are clear points at which the analogies break down, such as children are compelled to go to school. While business restrict the speech of employees and business can limit the speech of customers (as malls can kick people out because it is private, not public, ground), there is no precedent to suggest that a business can deny services to a customer based on the views of the business.

While I know photography, such as the works of Ansel Adams or our Iconic images, constitutes art, is the claim that wedding photography is art diminished by the fact that the work is commissioned? John Berger in Ways of Seeing would argue that wedding photography, just liking paintings in the 16th & 17th centuries, would not be art.

Third, there is a very delicate balancing argument between competing legal claims, artist expression and legal discrimination. Which is more important, the art or the commerce? If this goes to a court and side with the photographer, do you strike the law down as being unconstitutional or just provide a narrow decision, hoping this issue will not resurface. This will become a court case and wonder through the legal system, most likely to the 9th circuit. If it reaches there, it may reach the Supreme Court because of the contrasting ideologies between the 9th Circuit and the Supreme Court.

Fourth, if the photography studio in question uses other employee or sub-contracts out some of the jobs, could this be one of those jobs? This way, the business does not discriminate but the Elaine does not have to violate her liberty of conscience.

Fifth, if you are the person who contacted the photography studio, would you even want the photographer to work your wedding? If the photographer does not believe in same-sex marriages, do you want someone who may work under conditions of bad faith?

I am quite unsure of what I think in this case. For some reason I think that there may be a distinction between the photography studio and a hotel or restaurant. However, every time I try to rationalize that distinction, my arguments do not stand. Maybe this is just my draw to my position on the first amendment. However, in this case, I am unable to state that a business activity, even photography, is "speech" where I can argue that campaign donations constitutes speech. The analogy would be if Willock did not choose Elaine Photography because of her views rather than Elaine Photography not considering to offer services to Willock because of the Studio's position.

Pragmatically, I hesitantly think four and five are the best positions. I think that the photographer in question is discriminating and, further, is not being smart with her business. If she opposes same-sex marriage, see if you can contract it out or have another employee work the wedding. If she refuses, then she should face some repercussions over her actions, especially social protests. If you run a business, which Elaine Photography is, then the person should not be able to discriminate as she would not be able to if an interracial couple inquired about services or she would not be able to if she ran a hotel or restaurant.

Additionally, if I am Willock, there is no reason why I would want this photographer at my wedding and a complaint against them seems slightly vindictive though deserved because of the discrimination. If I find someone who wants to discriminate against me, I do not believe I could trust them to do high quality work.

How do others see this case?

Thanks to the Volokh Conspiracy for the inspiration for this post.

When Politics and College Basketball Collide

From Politico:

Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen, who's uncommitted, makes the comparison:

"I was thinking at the game last night that the last 90 seconds were so extraordinary, you think it's the kind of thing that keeps Hillary Clinton in the race," Bredesen told The Associated Press on Tuesday.

"You're just a couple of mistakes on the other person's part and a lucky break … away from totally turning that game upside down," he said. "And I'm sure that's the kind of thing that's going through her mind at the moment."

UPDATE: A pro-Obama blog goes the same direction, sort of:

In a move that's sure to be seen as controversial, Hillary has contacted the NCAA Board of Directors to argue that Memphis is actually better qualified to be National Champion.

Ms. Clinton stated that Memphis, while losing the game, had actually shown more ability to act like a National Champion on Day One. She argued that Memphis had passed every test during the game, including scoring more points than Kansas for 38 minutes. For 38 minutes they had shown the experience necessary to be National Champion. "Just because some team comes along in the last minute and scores more points than the other guy doesn't mean they're necessarily able to be National Champion on Day One."

Four Days in Denver

West Wing writer Lawrence O'Donnell Jr. has written "Four Days in Denver," a fictionalized version of the Democratic Convention the is in the latest New York Magazine. Here's a snippet:

Barack (deferentially): Mr. Chairman.
Baucus: Thanks for coming.
Hillary: Max, I thought—
Baucus: It’s time for you two to work this out.
Baucus starts to leave. Hillary follows Baucus toward the door, then Barack follows Hillary. Baucus herds them back into the room.
Baucus: Listen up. Your health-care bill (shifts glance from one to the other) has to come through my committee. So does your tax bill, the changes you wanna make to NAFTA—I could go on and on. You walk out of here now, and one of you somehow makes it to the White House, I guarantee you you’re gonna have the worst first year ever. (Exits.)

Barack: Well, here we are … Hillary, I—
Hillary: You’re a better speaker than I am.
Barack (confused): Uh …
Hillary: Way better. Better than Bill. Best I’ve ever seen.
Barack: Uh, thank—

Hillary: When you go out there and accept the nomination, it’s gonna be the best speech of this convention, no question about it. (beat) Even if you’re accepting the nomination for vice-president. You’re gonna be the rock star on the ticket no matter what I do.
Barack: I don’t want to be VP.

I'm dying to read the whole thing, so feel free to join me and discuss.

Raising Awareness or Showing Victimage

CNN has a video report on a women who sells the T-Shirt "I Was Raped." From the report, the T-Shirt is true in the literal sense and the woman in question hopes to sell shirts to raise awareness for the issue so other women will speak out. You can read more about the cause here.

The article also discusses whether or not this message is appropriate. One objector states that the person should not show their victimage, which of all possible refutations, this is terribly weak and not convincing, as it just sounds as if the person does not want to hear about any really bad news that occurs around her.

I can see this may be a controversy in a school setting as it may be so controversial that it disrupts the education process; however, I would still allow the student to wear it though most school administrators would choose to ban it, especially after Morse v. Frederick, aka "Bong Hits for Jesus." Yet, this controversy has not spread to a school.

Also, I think that, from the video, the analogy to the other banned T-Shirts, such as when the Seattle Mariners banned the "Yankees Suck" shirt, does not hold up because of the public/ private setting of the event.

Finally, there may be some concern that the meaning of the message loses its power if it is worn on a T-Shirt, i.e. The Chicken Little Argument. But I am unconvinced about this as well as every argument may lose some luster after it is used.

Very, very wrong

There is something very, very wrong with the world when the former co-host of "What Not to Wear" opens a boutique in CBGB's.

Farewell, Sweet Carolina

Having marinated in Tar Heels basketball since November, having invested imaginative energy into that particular group of players, it is only now, a little over 24 hours since their defeat by Kansas, that Harrogate finds the fortitude to blog this farewell. Of course, one can only be used to such cruel endings. The National Championship is an elusive prize that it would be foolhardy to expect, regardless of the team in question.

How such things end. They rolled into San Antonio with seemingly everything going for them--seemingly that is, because one had no idea as to the actual health level of their point guard, Lawson, who sat the bench at the crucial midway point of the second half, with Carolina only four points down and with Kansas staggering on the ropes. Not that Lawson's absence on the floor is to be given excessive weight. But that long riding of the pine haunts Harrogate still, filling him with questions, what ifs, and inexpressible longing.

But, at the beginning of the game and at the end when it counted the most, Kansas was absolutely awesome. At times it looked as though Carolina was only moving, and jumping, at half speed against those guys. You have to give them their props. And so now the Showdown tonight, with Memphis, who will likely be favored. A defensive grind out this game shall not be. Threes, dunks, flying bodies aplenty await all who tune in this evening.

Harrogate, at this point, harbors no preference. Heartbroken, he will watch. But, he will not neglect this opportunity to thank Carolina for one of the most exciting seasons they have ever mustered. And already, he is open to "hot-stove" Discourses regarding next season.

Until then, Carolina, Harrogate has three words for ya: "Buenas Tardes Amigo."

A few interesting reads...

Here are a few things to chew over as the majority of the country waits in anticipation of the conclusion to March Madness. If we could only conclude of the madness in the same month that it started....

Insert UNC joke here....

From The New Republic: If the Democrats were to win the general election, which major policy should the Democrats attempt to achieve first: Global Warming or Health Care?

Some climate scientists think we have less than a decade to start reducing carbon emissions in the United States if we want a shot at avoiding the worst effects of global warming (we'd also need to figure out how to get China and India to start curbing their emissions—and soon). So that's a decent contender for the top of the to-do list. Then again, health care costs and access are extremely pressing issues, too, and universal coverage is the kind of thing that could help cement a Democratic majority for years to come. (Plus, universal health care might be easier to pass during an economic slump than a cap-and-trade bill that will raise energy prices—even if there are ways to cushion the pain from a climate bill.)

The article assumes that the Democrats will only be able to target one major initiative in the first term and I am assuming that Iraq magically disappears for the country to focus on Global Warming or Health Care.

From Slate: One third of women make more than men and the refutation here. This is interesting because of the class involved in the debate as this article discusses women in elite positions. My question: when we argue that there is sexism because men make more than women are we having the wrong argument because we remove class and power from the conversation?

From The New York Times: Stanley Fish examines French Theory in the US. It is an interesting introduction into the basics of the theory and why there is a rejection to it in the US. It would serve as a decent introduction to deconstruction if you needed to teach it to undergrads.

Oh, and Senator Clinton will be on Ellen to best Senator Obama'a 37. Early takes suggest that Chicago should not worry. And now please can we talk about something important.

I mean no disrespect....

Ok, actually, yeah I do. Let's go get those guns.