Month: August 2011

It has to do with Depardieu and Number Two.

"When you look at August 2011 from Spring/Summer/Fall 2012, one more vacation isn't going to seem like much of anything. The economy will matter, but not what it was in August 2011, what it is now. Whatever it is, people will hold Obama responsible, so right now, he's hoping things will be better enough that he'll have something to claim credit for.

Could he do something right now, in August 2011, that will make the economy better at that future point, something that will be more effective than biking and golfing on Martha's Vinyard? I don't think he can, and if he doesn't think he can, in my book, that's a point in his favor. Spare me your programs and clever ideas. I like getting some evidence that he knows the limits of government," – Ann Althouse, pushing back against the idiotic screeds against the president taking a vacation.

This debate continues to blur lines and fascinate:

You quote a reader's self-described "Cliffs Notes" version of a theory that Adam and Eve weren't the only people originally created. It's a testament to how far we've come that the reader had first heard this theory only recently. It's actually a centuries-old doctrine called "polygenesis," which had a considerable vogue in the nineteenth century and was closely linked to the "scientific racism" of that era. It was thought that the simplest way to explain the differences among human groups was to assume that they arose from separate creations. Race differences were therefore innate and unbridgeable, like the differences between humans and apes.

Against this, the traditional "monogenesis" of the biblical Creation account was helpful, at least some of the time, as a progressive reminder that we're all finally part of the same big family and all equal in God's eyes, regardless of differences in skin color and the like. 

Fortunately, the further advances of science have been as destructive of polygenism as of biblical literalism. There is no good reason to revive either one. All evidence now suggests that (a) there was no literal, instant "Adamic" Creation as described in the Bible, but (b) nonetheless, at least since the last Neanderthal died, there has been one and only kind of homo sapiens, and the variations crudely referred to as "races" are superficial and invidious if taken as reasons to favor some groups over others.

If polygenesis made a comeback, our debates on a range of issues would be even coarser than they already are. For instance, as maddening as it is to hear gays described as disordered and in need of "cure," or that "marriage is only between a man and a woman," at least these backward views concede that gay and straight are part of the same human creation. Imagine how much further we'd still have to go if there were people seriously arguing that gays and straights aren't really even the same species and that marriage is only for human beings. But that's exactly the depth to which racist claims once descended.

From the text accompanying the above image:

Early anthropological studies were used to support both [monogenesis and polygenesis]. Goldsmith's illustrated races (above) include "Chinese," "Laplander," "Hottentot," "Negro," and "American." Variations in human physiognomy (seven-foot Masai tribesmen, three-foot pygmies, Asiatic North Americans, albinos of all "races") led to far-fetched theories about the origins and possible relationships among human beings. Darker races were sometimes described as the descendants of Cain. Lighter races were linked to the iconography of Jesus, even after it became clear that a first-century Palestinian would have looked nothing like a "white" European.

The proximity of humans to higher apes caused additional confusion; the orang-utan was referred to as homo silvestris (man of the woods) until well into the nineteenth century. The problem resolved itself into a simple opposition that had staggering consequences for the two centuries after 1800: if humans (much less races) were separately created, then the laws and moral values that applied to one group need not apply to another; if all humans (much less animals) were biologically related, then their shared destinies might depend on respect and cooperation, not blind dominion.

After the Austin Chronicle's ad trawling for sexual dirt on Rick Perry, created by a fanatical Ron Paul fan, Alexandra Petri free-associates:

Finally some pushback against the vile threats and rhetoric from actual, elected Republicans:

“You can’t be calling Bernanke a traitor and you can’t be questioning whether or not Barack Obama loves America, that type of thing,” said Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee and veteran Long Island incumbent. “I’ve been with Perry a few times, and I can see how he could project, again, if it’s done the right way. But no, if he continues this, he’ll have a tough time.” … Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), the Chief Deputy Whip and an emerging political powerhouse in suburban Chicago, added of the treason reference: “That’s not something you want to lead with if you’re trying to get independents to come your way. I would imagine that he’s thinking through his strategy.”

Yale law professor William Eskridge argues that the Supreme Court should issue a narrow ruling on Perry v. Schwarzenegger:

Like the Warren Court did in the different-race marriage cases, the Roberts Court should not be in a hurry to reach the constitutional merits of the same-sex marriage cases. If the Justices reach the merits, they should craft an opinion that decides the California appeal but goes no further.  A Romer-based approach is the best the Court can do under those circumstances—and then watch as the state-by-state debate eventually runs out and a rough consensus emerges among younger Americans, who I believe will ultimately find same-sex marriage a constitutional no-brainer.

Just passing this nugget along … before lunchtime.

Reacting to Coburn's unsettling far-right relapse yesterday in an interview with the Tulsa World, Greg Sargent reviews the full transcript. This didn't make the cut. When asked if he thinks Obama wants to destroy the country, Coburn replies

“No, I don’t… He’s a very bright man. But think about his life. And think about what he was exposed to and what he saw in America. He’s only relating what his experience in life was… “His intent isn’t to destroy. It’s to create dependency because it worked so well for him. I don’t say that critically. Look at people for what they are. Don’t assume ulterior motives. I don’t think he doesn’t love our country. I think he does.

I'm still confused about how exactly Obama was a product of programs that create "dependency." He seems to disprove that entirely. But the full context is important, because it shows that Coburn hasn't actually gone off the deep end entirely. Sargent:

As Adam Serwer notes, the problem with Coburn’s remarks as they were originally reported is that he seemed to be saying that blacks get unfair advantages, thanks to the welare state — an implication that’s central to the conservative case against it. I think the full transcript shows that this isn’t quite what Coburn was saying, but his use of the phrase “create dependence” is still highly questionable. Because as Serwer also notes, Coburn is also implicitly conceding that these programs succeed in their objective of helping people who lack the means to protect themselves.

What’s funny to me about this whole episode is that it reveals how challenging it is for the saner variety of Republicans to reason with some of their constituents about the President. Coburn is struggling to talk a constituent out of his anxiety that Obama actively wants to destroy the country. He needs to find a way of defending Obama’s motives that a constituent inclined to believe the worst about Obama might be able to listen to and even tolerate. So Coburn hit on this way of defending Obama while still keeping his argument confined within a world view that this constituent might find acceptable. It’s not easy being a Republican official these days.

Elias Isquith also pooh-poohs the outcry against Coburn, adding: 

 If Coburn’s affection for Obama has undercurrents of patronization or condescension, well, it wouldn’t be the first time such a thing has happened — and we could reasonably chalk it up to the two mens’ difference in age, experience and worldview as we could to race…doesn’t the example of Obama, even if we accept Coburn’s framing, argue in favor of the President’s supposed views? I mean, the man in question, here, who has benefited from such “tremendous advantage[s]” is, by Coburn’s own estimation, a “very bright” President.

Weigel sees it:

By starting out this campaign as a joke candidate, he can "win" if he finishes as less than a joke. That could be as little as a fourth place finish in the Iowa caucuses, followed by a passionate withdrawal speech.

I think Dave means Santorum can "win" if he finishes as more than a joke. But Weigel's formulation may be more accurate.

Sarah Palin: You Betcha! is premiering at Toronto’s International Film Festival in September. Filmmaker Nick Broomfiled described his trip to Wasilla thusly:

People are frightened to talk. Wasilla makes Twin Peaks look like a walk in the park.