Barbara Ehrenreich writes about civil liberties and dance:
Compared with most of the issues that the venerable American civil liberties lawyer Norman Siegel takes up, this one may seem like the ultimate in urban frivolity: Late last month, he joined hundreds of hip-hoppers, salsa dancers, Lindy Hoppers and techno-heads boogying along Fifth Avenue to protest New York City’s 80-year-old restrictions on dancing in bars.
As so often in the past, the Human Rights Campaign finds a way to protect Democrats who oppose immigration equality – for b.s. reasons of the potential for "fraud" by gay couples. Why are gay couples more likely to be fraudulent in their immigration applications than straight ones? Amazingly, HRC didn’t even ask the Democrats about the Jesse Helms ban on HIV-positive immigrants or tourists. The questionnaire is also revealing. Notice how civil unions get prime billing – and civil marriage is way down the list. HRC’s long record of failing to back marriage equality in order to placate their Democratic pay-masters continues. How do we expect politicians to favor our equality if the Human Rights Campaign doesn’t have the courage to stand up for it?
More attempts to understand neoconservatism in the Middle East: on TPM and Ezra’s site. Maybe Josh Marshall was right.
A rare contemporary glimpse of her fangs:
After ten years in power, it is clear that Blair is not in the same league as Attlee or Thatcher, and will never be seen as a politician who ‘changed the weather.’ Maybe he was unlucky in this respect. Both Attlee and Thatcher came to power supported by a changing tide of the dominant ideology. It should have been clear from the start that The Third Way – or at least the interpretation given to it by New Labour – was ideationally too close to Thatcherism to create widespread enthusiasm and significant change. In the end, Mrs. Thatcher herself is perhaps the best judge. During her 81st birthday party in London last October, a guest asked her what she thought of new Tory leader David Cameron. With a smile, she answered: "I still prefer Tony Blair."
A reader writes:
Take heart, Andrew. Clinton is running in the Democratic Party primaries, not the disaffected conservative primaries, and her "I trusted Bush" defense of her vote to authorize the Iraq War was a disaster. Sure, in essence that was the same mistake that you and a lot of other people made, but I suspect that Mike Gravel spoke for a great deal of the Democratic base when he argued that her vote displayed a lack of moral judgment which disqualifies her as a Democratic candidate.
Of course, if Clinton breaks 40% support I may have to eat my words. But I don’t think this issue is ever going away, and she is just digging the hole deeper.
John B. Judis writes a moving, intense account of the remarkable evolution of Chuck Hagel. Whether one agrees with Hagel or not, he does appear to me to be committed to a wrenching, if sometimes incoherent, process of conscience and judgment. What drives him is not just patriotism, it seems to me, but a long-delayed desire to make sense of his own life and his country’s past. He has gotten his fair share of obloquy. But we need more politicians like Hagel.
Upon inspection, not so much. Cunning Realist asks a good question:
Unless I missed something, there’s not one mention of Iraq anywhere.
How plausible is that? Are these alleged plots happening in a vacuum? Was Iraq the furthest thing from the minds of those arrested? No mention of Iraq ever, in any email, in any conversation, on any audiotape?
A reader with too much time on his hands writes:
Here’s my analysis of the Democratic debate last night – in the style of a Gilbert and Sullivan opera.
[frantic music] C1: She won!
C2: Which one?!
C1: The woman actually won.
C2: Which one?
C1: This one
C2: That woman actually won?C1: She won!
C2: She won!
Together: By gum, she really won.
C2: How did she fare?
C1: She seemed prepared
C2: How did she speak?
C1: Without a squeak!
Together: By gum, she really won.
[slower]
C2: And what about that guy, Barack?
C1: He and Edwards both attacked.[C1 draws a sword]
C2: And did they strike a fatal blow?
C1: If they did, it didn’t show.[C1 puts his sword away]
C2: And what about Bill Richardson?
C1: He’s Hispanic, who will vote for him?[pause…thinking…frantic music again]
C2: You’re right!
C1: She’s left!
C2: I really think you’re right
C1: She won!
C2: That one…
C1: Is almost half woman![joining hands]
C2: And now we know
C1: Who won the show
C2: It’s not the men
C1: We thought would win.
Together: By gum, she really won![Close, applause, And I will now go do something meaningful with my life]
Get a blog!
Hugh Hewitt can’t stop what he has previously unleashed. A Christianist ally, Frank Pastore, writes:
I’m a Christian-American-Conservative-Republican–in that order. I support Christianity first and foremost, everything else flows from that. I’m a Christian who happens to be a Republican, not a Republican who happens to be a Christian. I care more about people coming to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ than I do any political candidate. At the end of my life, the question I will be asked is not, ‘Whom did you help elect?’ But, ‘Whom did you serve?’
Hugh says bigotry is exposed by simply inserting the word "Jew" for "Mormon" in suspect statements. This seems to imply that both stand in the same relationship to Christianity. This is not so. Jews and Christians worship the same God, Mormons worship different gods. And Jews don’t insist they are the restoration of Christianity after eighteen centuries of apostasy.
Since Joseph Smith so clearly misrepresents the person and work of Jesus Christ, and the Book of Mormon is antithetical to the Bible, why would it be bigotry if someone chooses not to support such heresy?
Maybe "Knocked Up" isn’t homophobic after all. A deleted scene (warning – serious profanity, so maybe not best for the office):
The Dish 