An up and coming African-American pol from Georgia has his life turned upside down by an ex-boyfriend. The consequences are real and deep:
If I had to make a list of things that I did not want to do in my life, probably below ‘suicide’ would be having that conversation with my mother.
But she was fine. As parents increasingly are.
ThinkProgress has a slam dunk:
It is not true that the debt under Obama has increased more than all the other presidents combined.
When Obama took office the debt stood at $10.6 trillion. After inheriting two wars and the worst economy since the Great Depression, the debt has grown by $3.7 trillion since Obama has been in office. Palin is off by about $7 trillion.
Her publicist, Greta van Susteren, does not dispute this and does not point out that a huge amount of it is due to a collapse in revenues during a deep recession that Obama inherited – a recession that would have been even deeper were it not for the stimulus package. Now I can guess you can still argue that there should not have been a stimulus at all, but even then, who would seriously doubt that the deeper crash would have temporarily reduced revenues even further? Even the most hardcore of anti-Keynesians would acknowledge that letting the US economy hit rock bottom, and allowing the entire auto industry to be wiped out, and letting the banks collapse would have led to greater debt in the short term.
But when so many partisan hacks attacked Obama for the debt within minutes of his getting into office, who can blame this know-nothing for parroting a piece of obvious, provable untruth? And who, more to the point, will insist on a retraction? Palin doesn't do retractions. Her lies instantly become her reality.
"Thanks for ruining our vacation," – Piper Palin to a Time photographer.
Genevieve Bell discounts privacy concerns:
Privacy was a big issue a decade ago. Today, people are more worried about reputation. We tested people with future scenarios, such as if your smart television could update your Facebook page about what you're watching. No one liked it. People said things like, "My girlfriend put the show on and left the room" or "I've only ever watched it once". We talk about the content we watch as part of who we are. One of the biggest anxieties we have about these technologies is that they reveal what we're really up to – what dreadful dorks we are.
Alexis Madrigal wonders "if privacy policy advocates could score points by hitting the reputation button, even if they have greater concerns." I'm not sure I buy the distinction. The whole point of privacy is reputation, i.e. a zone where you can be free to do what one wishes without the scrutiny of strangers who do not and cannot know the full you. The end of that privacy is a much bigger deal than many think. When even a congressman's member is available for all to see instantly, when small failings or petty flaws or silly mistakes become defining acts for complex human beings, we have altered our social reality.
One response is to hide from public view entirely. Another is to recognize that we are all exposed now, embrace it and even flaunt your awful and wonderful traits for the world to see. Hence Facebook. And hence reality television.
Readers may be relieved – or crushed – by the Dish's indifference to the fantastic mystery tour that has consumed the blogosphere for days now. But if you want the full details on how a yFrog can be hacked, you can rely on Mickey's obsessive triple lutz on the subject. Of course the last time he was convinced someone was guilty in a case where the core evidence was entirely unknown, he was smearing Gary Condit. But that won't stop him. He got John Edwards right. This is classic Kaus:
Just because Weiner could conceivably have been framed doesn’t mean he was. If he really is innocent and has only managed to make everyone think he is guilty, then he’s engineered the worst PR performance in recent history. I still don’t believe he’s that stupid. But maybe he was advised by Chris Lehane!
d) All eyes turn to Breitbart. … P.S.: But what is the “strange behavior” on the part of anti-Weiner tweeter PatriotUSA76 to which Breitbart associate Lee Stranahan refers?
The reference to Chris Lehane is what really puts this post over the top. But where's the mandatory Howie Kurtz dig? I'm so disappointed … but wait! Scroll down! It's here!
An alternative approach to this story can be read here.
It really is official now. But the Obama administration refuses to accept the empirically obvious.
Michelle Cottle is rooting for Palin and Bachmann to run, despite their "eccentricities":
People need to get used to the idea of having women jump willy-nilly into the presidential pool the way the guys have long done. Herman Cain? Morry Taylor? Alan Keyes? Steve Forbes? Mike Gravel? Dennis Kucinich? Heck, in 1992, Ross Perot launched a third party … despite being as nutty as squirrel poo. … Thoughtful, self-aware, well-adjusted people rarely run for president. If we wait around for textbook-perfect female candidates to normalize this process, we will be waiting forever.
As Palin donned a Star of David pendant in New York – "Today is the 44th anniversary of Jerusalem being reunited. We want to call attention to that" – Adam Kirsch reviews a new anthology on philo-Semitism that begins with a joke: “Q: Which is preferable—the antisemite or the philosemite? A: The antisemite—at least he isn’t lying.”
This may be too cynical; closer to the bone is the saying that “a philo-Semite is an anti-Semite who loves Jews.” That formulation helps to capture the sense that philo- and anti- share an unhealthy interest in Jews and an unreal notion of who and what Jews are. Both deal not with Jewishness but with “Semitism,” as if being a Jew were the same as embracing a political ideology such as communism or conservatism—rather than what it really is, a religious and historical identity that cuts across political and economic lines.
… As early as the 11th century, then, we can see the ambivalence that continues to mark Christian philo-Semitism down to the present. Jews are valued, but only as long as they play the role assigned them in a Christian project or worldview. If Jews step out of that role, they are bitterly criticized.
On Christianist anti-Semitism:
This philo-Semitism is, at its heart, deeply anti-Jewish, and the attempts of Israeli politicians to court evangelical support have been awkward, to say the least. In 1996, during Benjamin Netanyahu’s first term as prime minister, he supported a bill, urged by Orthodox members of the Knesset, to ban Christian missionary activity in Israel. When he realized that this would profoundly offend the American Christian Right, Netanyahu changed his mind and thwarted the bill. Here we have the Jewish leader of a Jewish state permitting Christians to try to convert Jews, as the price for Christian political support.
A defense of Bolivia's favorite plant.
Douthat sees a grand deficit bargin as much more politically feasible than comprehensive immigration reform:
There doesn’t have to be a deal on immigration. The system is dysfunctional, yes, but a dysfunctional immigration system doesn’t threaten the long-term stability and prosperity of the United States the way that the current fiscal imbalance does. It’s fine for conservatives to prefer the current “no deal” scenario on immigration to the kind of bargain that the political class is likely to negotiate. But on the deficit, the picture is very different: We either make a deal, or we endure a debt crisis. And while conservatives have every obligation to hold out for the best possible bargain, they don’t have the luxury of refusing to compromise at all.
The Dish 