“At the moment, simply opposing gay marriage doesn’t make you a homophobe, any more than opposing affirmative action makes you a racist or opposition to settlements on the West Bank makes you an anti-Semite,” – Mike Kinsley.
I’m with Mike. I’m deeply opposed to stigmatizing people who disagree with me on this. I’m in favor of allowing them maximal free speech so I can engage their arguments. Hence my anthology, which presents both sides fairly.
After reading Emily Witt’s essay detailing the shoot of an extremely graphic BDSM porn film, Dreher worries that we have entered an era in which consent is the only criterion for sexual relations:
The essay is full of descriptions of public sadomasochistic rituals involving willing participants and crowds. It is difficult for me to imagine anything more degrading than what is recorded in this essay, though it is important to note that the women who submit to being spat on, humiliated, beaten, tortured, and sexually violated consented to the experience, and later speak about how great it was. The horror on display here is not only that people will do that to others for sexual pleasure, but that others will take pleasure in being so humiliated. This, as we know from the Marquis de Sade at least, is nothing new. What is new about it, I think — and this is why the essay got to me — is that it is becoming more acceptable in a world in which there is no strong moral framework to push back against this stuff. You can have whatever you desire. If you choose hell, then we will call it good, because it is freely chosen, and brings you pleasure.
But it wasn’t hell for the woman involved. When asked how she felt about a public sexual humiliation, she replied, “I had a great time, it was amazing. There was so much going on.” Then this question:
DONNA: On a scale of one to ten, how would you rate your happiness leaving the shoot?
PENNY: Eleven!
Noah Millman puzzles at Dreher’s “visceral reaction to a bunch of freaky Friscans flying their freak flag. Why? What’s his stake?” Dreher answers:
We are considering nixing the Daily Wrap as a feature but would like to get reader feedback first. Is it useful to you? It’s very time-consuming for us. But if enough readers find it helpful, it’s your blog as well as ours. So let us know in the above poll if you feel strongly either way, or if you barely notice it at all.
From the American Enterprise Institute’s countdown of the “21 Greatest Conservative Rap Songs Of All Time” is a close-reading of Dr. Dre’s “Still D.R.E.” featuring Snoop Dogg. It is not apparently a parody:
[J]ust because something is hip and new it is not necessarily better (“Still the beats bang, still doing my thang / Since I left, ain’’ too much changed, still”). Hope and change are not a substitute for skill and competence: “I bring the fire till you’re soaking in your seat / It’s not a fluke, it’s been tried, I’m the truth.” But of course, even Dr. Young’s tried and tested approach to producing beats is of limited worth without hard work. From the moment he wakes up till the moment he goes to sleep, his mind is focused on his professional obligations (“Treat my rap like Cali weed, I smoke til I sleep / Wake up in the A.M., compose a beat”). But that does not mean that he is unwilling to dedicate some of his time to teaching, passing on the truth of the ages to new generations (“Kept my ear to the streets, signed Eminem / He’s triple platinum, doing 50 a week”).
Near the end of the song, all this culminates in a warning to wannabe revolutionaries everywhere: “Dr. Dre be the name / Still running the game.” And this extends, of course, to those who believe that a Marxist utopia can be established through democratically endorsed redistribution of wealth. As Dr. Young explains in “Forgot About Dre,” a song from his next album: “If it was up to me / You motherf****** would stop coming up to me / With your hands out lookin’ up to me / Like you want something free.”
A reader writes:
I found your post intriguing, but then I saw this takedown of errors in the dataset. I think a correction is definitely due, since at least some of the results appear to be opposite to the truth.
Yep: one stats expert has spotted a “fat finger” in the Bangladesh data:
“Yes” and “No” got swapped in the second round of the survey, which means that 28.3% of Bangladeshis said they wouldn’t want neighbors of a different race – not 71.7%.
That’s a huge difference. But it may be restricted to Bangladesh. Another reader:
I don’t see how that map gives us a grasp of racism around the world. With the exception of France and a couple of other First World countries, this seems to be a much better indicator of each country’s knowledge of First World norms.
First, former President Rafsanjani made a surprise entrance into the race. Now, the Guardian Council has delayed its announcement of the approved candidates for the election, which will give those candidates just over three weeks to campaign. David Patrikarakos notes how the regime is already attempting to discredit Rafsanjani:
Rafsanjani would have support from both conservatives and reformists, and, critically, he could win. So the question remains: will he pass the vetting process?
Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati heads the Guardian Council and is a close ally of Khamenei. He would probably like to reject Rafsanjani’s candidacy outright, but things are not that simple. … Rafsanjani is too powerful to be swatted aside like so many other candidates but, equally, the regime is determined to avoid a repeat of the popular unrest of 2009. … It is a sign of how isolated Iran’s ruling elite have become that Rafsanjani, a commercially minded pragmatist who never displayed any great love of reform beyond what was practically necessary, is now seen as a grave internal threat to the regime. Even were he elected there is no knowing how reformist he would be: his track record shouldn’t give any hope to the regime’s opponents, and how far he has changed remains to be seen.
Meanwhile, Laura Rozen takes a look at Saeed Jalili, the country’s top nuclear negotiator, who may emerge as the hardline establishment’s choice now that Rafsanjani is running:
In a long and wonky post on genetics and race, Razib Khan defends a biological understanding of “race”:
The history of a population affects [its] genome, and its genome affects the nature of its traits and diseases. Because of differences across populations statistical geneticists with medical aims routinely restrict their data set to individuals of one population. And, within groups like African Americans which are admixed there is variation in disease risk by genomic fraction. Though an individual with 60 percent African ancestry may feel and say they are no more or no less African American than someone who is 80 percent African in ancestry, there are differences in disease susceptibilities.
There is no Platonic sense where there are perfect categories with ideal uses. Rather, we muddle on, making usage of heuristics and frameworks which are serviceable for the moment. We lose our way when we ignore the multi-textured nature of the issues.
But one of his commenters, like TNC’s, suggests using a term other than “race” to describe genetically similar populations:
The classical definition and conception of the word ‘race’ is too entrenched and changing it hardly seems a battle worth fighting (and likely futile anyway). Best to adopt a different term entirely.
No, not Michele Bachmann. A woman in vampire make-up attends the traditional park picnic on the first day of the annual Wave-Gotik Treffen, or Wave and Goth Festival, on May 17, 2013 in Leipzig, Germany. The four-day festival, in which elaborate fashion is a must, brings together over 20,000 Wave, Goth and steam punk enthusiasts from all over the world for concerts, readings, films, a Middle Ages market and workshops. By Marco Prosch/Getty Images.
Ramesh Ponnuru sees it as a general problem for the administration:
Ten days ago the president gave a commencement speech at Ohio State University urging graduates not to view government as “some separate, sinister entity.” Liberals prefer that people view government, as former Representative Barney Frank once put it, as just the name we use for the things we do together. The IRS scandal makes the government look more like, well, a separate, sinister entity — and that can’t help the party of government activism.
Wilkinson focuses on a specific example:
The scandal over the Internal Revenue Service targeting conservative non-profit organisations for extra scrutiny comes at an inauspicious time for the Obama administration. When Obamacare goes in to full effect in January, the IRS will be vested with an array of new powers. Americans will be required to prove to the agency that they have a “qualifying” health plan, or pay a penalty. The IRS is also charged with passing confidential tax info to the Department of Health and Human Services, which will determine eligibility for new health-care subsidies. Americans will be required to report changes to their lives that might affect their eligibility for subsidies. A new job, a raise, a move to a new state, a change in marital status, a change in hours worked can all trigger a requirement to update the IRS.
Which means the stable-clearing must be fair but decisive. Anyone connected to what appears to be a lefty cabal of mid-level officials should be thrown out on their ear.
Venezuelans find out the hard way why price controls are a bad idea – the entire country is running short of toilet paper.
A reader catches Kai Ryssdal committing journalism:
I don’t know if y’all had a chance to listen to Donald Rumsfeld being torn a new one on Marketplace yesterday, but it was glorious to hear. Rummy was no doubt expecting softball questions about his new book Rumsfeld’s Rules and instead was grilled about how the wisdom in his book is in stark contrast to his work with Iraq and Afghanistan. I’ve never felt a man squirm through airwaves like that.
Listen to the whole interview here. Before he decided to commit war crimes, I knew Rummy as an acquaintance, stayed at his house in Taos, dined with him, and often argued with him. He’s fun to argue with, but when cornered, he simply shuts you down.
I remember asking him before the Iraq war why the US was firing Arab linguists just because they were gay. Didn’t we need every Arab linguist we could get? He point blank refused to admit it was happening at all. He openly asked how someone as allegedly smart as I was could be so misinformed. In front of others, he dressed me down for my ignorance. I did not give in, but I did make a mental note: this guy is dangerously out of touch with reality, even as he insists he alone grasps reality.
His invasion and occupation of Iraq alone should render the only response to his “rules book” a blast of hysterical laughter. Or the kind of honest interviewing you’d never get from Politico.
But this man should not be interviewed anyway. He should be arrested.
A must-read by Shafer on the broader implications of a leaker or leakers within the administration prematurely divulging the existence of an inside mole in al Qaeda.
A new poll finds the following:
The amount of attention Americans are paying to the IRS and the Benghazi situations is well below the average for news stories Gallup has tracked over the years. This overall lack of attention is due in part to Democrats’ and, to a lesser degree, independents’ lack of interest, which stands in sharp contrast to the significantly above-average attention among Republicans.
There’s a real issue about the outrageous abuse of power in the Cincinnati office of the IRS – and heads have, should, and will roll. But talk of impeachment, unhinged rants like Noonan’s, and the total lack of any constructive policy proposals, except repeal of Obamacare, does not rescue the GOP. If they’re not careful, and the rhetoric keeps intensifying, they’ll begin to look like paranoid fanatics. That didn’t work even when there was a presidential scandal – of president Clinton perjuring himself. Why would it when this president – so far – is not implicated in any of these stories in any way? Then there’s this polarization:
There is a 21-percentage-point gap between Republicans and Democrats in terms of following the Benghazi story closely, and a 27-point gap on the IRS story.
On Benghazi, Independents are more like Democrats. On the IRS, they’re more like Republicans.
In the midst of their favorite political week in months, the editors ask the question we’re all asking of the current Obama doldrums: “What Would Cheney Do?” I kid you not. John Harris says that’s a question that often comes up in their office.
Cheney, a war criminal, remains one of their icons. But his chief lackey, Mike Allen, stays quiet. Good call, Mike.
First Oprah Moment…every developer at I/O…YOU’RE getting a Pixel and YOU’RE getting a Pixel and YOU’RE getting a Pixel..!!!!!
— Andy Ihnatko (@Ihnatko) May 15, 2013
Jeff Saginor is bothered by the $1,299 gift bag that Google gives away free to attendees of its annual Google I/O conference:
A few readers with tax expertise chime in:
All I do all day is advise c3s and c4s on this stuff (only liberal and nonpartisan ones – so I write this email as an ideological opponent of the Tea Party groups). And I can tell you Noam’s argument is off. Only a very experienced nonprofit tax lawyer is likely to know that c4s don’t have to file IRS Form 1024 in order to be recognized as tax-exempt. In fact, within the past few months, it was a topic of discussion on an email list of nonprofit tax lawyers, with the “experts” trying in vain to find confirmation from the IRS that these groups aren’t required to file.
Most importantly, the IRS deceptively tried to get groups to think they needed to file.
Martin Lewis wants more attention paid to it:
I find it extraordinary that the massive global drop in human fertility has been so little noticed by the media, escaping the attention of even highly educated Americans. The outdated idea that Mexico has a crushingly high birthrate continues to inform many discussions of immigration reform in the United States, even though Mexico’s TFR (2.32 in 2010) is only slightly above that of the United States.
It almost seems as though we have collectively decided to ignore this momentous transformation of human behavior.
Back to top
