Seven bullets – one in the dude’s leg – from the cops. He survived. Yes, Florida. Where else?
Month: July 2013
Reality Check
New numbers from Gallup show marriage equality continuing to gain ground:
Gallup used two separate approaches to measure public support for gay marriage this month, and they produced similar results: 52% would vote for a federal law legalizing same-sex marriages in all 50 states, and 54% think gay marriages should be recognized as valid, with the same rights as marriages between men and women. … [G]roups showing at least 60% support for legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide include Democrats, adults aged 18 to 34, those who rarely or never attend a church or other place of worship, moderates, Easterners, and Catholics.
The new poll doesn’t change much on the generic question as to approval of marriage equality. But what’s truly striking to me is how a majority would be happy to extend marriage equality to all fifty states. If that trend continues, I can easily imagine Anthony Kennedy writing a Loving vs Virginia decision in a few years’ time. I’ve always been a federalist on this, and remain so. But the public may be out-stripping even me now on this question.
And, of course, this is yet another crisis for the GOP.
Their core, white evangelical base is fanatically opposed to all things gay – let alone marriage equality – because their religious literalism and fundamentalism prevent them from exercizing any political pragmatism. So-called “conservatives” in the poll are opposed to marriage equality by 67 – 30 percent. The same number for “Republicans.” That akes the GOP base more reactionary than the South in general, which opposes marriage equality by 51 – 43 percent. The GOP is a fanatical minority within a minority.
And again, Catholics are at the forefront of the push for equality 60 – 36, defying the theocons and far more in tune with the new Pope than the old one. The moderates? They favor equality by 63 – 32 percent. They are people who once may have voted Republican. This issue is one reason they’ve switched sides.
The Clintons vs The Weiners!
In what can only be described as an extract from the annals of extreme chutzpah, the Clintons – yes, the Clintons! – are now weighing in, via surrogates, to force Anthony Weiner from the race for mayor of New York. Apparently, the Clintons believe that an embarrassing dick pic – along with lying in his apology – should be enough to force the horny narcissist from the race.
My jaw is hovering near the floor-boards.
So far as we know, Anthony Weiner has never committed adultery or sexually harassed or abused anyone. And Huma Abedin has not blamed a vast right-wing conspiracy for her husband’s libidinous indiscretions. None of that could be said about the Clintons. Bill lied and lied and lied again and again and again – until he was lying under oath, and lying to his own cabinet, telling them to go out and deny the very things he knew he had done. Bill didn’t send his dick pic to some activist paramour; he told state troopers to bring that hot woman he spied in the hotel lobby up to his room where he exposed himself to her and told her to “lick it.” And this creep has the gall to vent about Weiner.
The Clintons, via Sidney Blumenthal, orchestrated a whisper campaign to portray a young intern, Monica Lewinsky, as a deluded stalker who was lying about her affair with the president. If that dress had never emerged, both Clintons would still be smearing her today. As for recklessness, Bill Clinton, knowing full well that he was already being sued for sexual harassment by elements on the far right, went right ahead and had sex with an intern working for him at the White House – destroying the promise of his second term, and giving the hypocritical, extremist Republicans the political gift of a lifetime. Talk about betrayal of his supporters and everyone who had ever worked for him, including his cabinet. The Weiner affair is a trivial non-event compared with the Clintons’ reckless, mutual self-destruction.
Even now, the Clintons, through their various spokespeople, are lying:
“The Clintons are upset with the comparisons that the Weiners seem to be encouraging — that Huma is ‘standing by her man’ the way Hillary did with Bill, which is not what she in fact did,’’ said a top state Democrat.
Really? Let’s go to the tape:
Almost everything that man says in the video above is a lie. Hillary knew that and yet still stood by her man in that critical New Hampshire primary interview with Steve Croft, giving her husband crucial cover to stay in a race many were telling him to pull out of. Listen to her lies above – and Hillary’s assertion that the press created this story by paying Gennifer Flowers. She went much, much, much further than Huma’s dignified statement, knowing full well that she had been complicit for years in her husband’s sexual harassment and abuse. What has always mattered to Hillary Clinton is her path to power, not the abused women her husband left as media roadkill and Hillary stepped on afterward. Which makes this chutzpah all the more remarkable:
“The Clintons are pissed off that Weiner’s campaign is saying that Huma is just like Hillary,’’ said the source. “How dare they compare Huma with Hillary? Hillary was the first lady. Hillary was a senator. She was secretary of state.”
There you have not an argument, but a resort to authority. Huma Abedin, dealing with a political husband caught up in sexual embarrassment and lies, is not comparable with Hillary Clinton because Hillary Clinton … has held high office? You really do have to be neck-deep in Washington presumption to insinuate such a thing. But, staggeringly, that’s now the position of Maureen Dowd – that sexual harassment, abuse and perjury – were okay for the Clintons because Bill was so talented at politics, while Weiner is a loser. You really couldn’t make this up:
[Clintonistas] fear Huma learned the wrong lesson from Hillary, given that Bill was a roguish genius while Weiner’s a creepy loser. “Bill Clinton was the greatest political and policy mind of a generation,” said one. “Anthony is behaving similarly without the chops or résumé.” As often as Bill apologized, he didn’t promise he would “never, ever” do it again, as Weiner did. “What people won’t forgive is lying in the apology,” said the Clinton pal. “It has to be sincere, and it sure as hell has to be accurate.”
But lying under oath? Fine if you’re talented enough. The double standards here are so grotesque they remind you once again of who the Clintons are: liars who think that the rules should never apply to them.
They sicken me to my stomach. But they’ve given Anthony Weiner one more reason to stay in the race. He should let the voters decide his fate, not the Clinton machine. Now, it’s a matter of principle.
The Zimmerman Verdict And My Block
I’ve written how, for 20 years, I have lived on a street corner in Washington DC known for its drug activity and one gang, based at 17th and Euclid. I’ve written that I’d never been attacked, never hesitated to walk through a group of young black males, never crossed the street the way Victor Davis Hanson would. So it behooves me to note this story today:
Police say three black men approached a white male from behind in the 1700 block of Euclid Street NW. [DC police spokesman Araz] Alali says two of the men threw the victim to the ground and kicked him. Police say they yelled “This is for Trayvon Martin.” The attackers took the victim’s iPhone and wallet before fleeing.
Will that change my attitude when I manage to return from NYC? No. Does it deeply depress and anger me? Yes.
Francis’ Sunlight
How can I describe my response to the following simple words:
“There’s a lot of talk about the gay lobby, but I’ve never seen it on the Vatican ID card … When I meet a gay person, I have to distinguish between their being gay and being part of a lobby. If they accept the Lord and have goodwill, who am I to judge them? They shouldn’t be marginalized. The tendency [to homosexuality] is not the problem … they’re our brothers.”
Let’s parse this as conservatively as we can. What does it mean to be part of a “gay lobby”? In the context of the curia, I think it means that a group of cardinals or Vatican officials saw their sexual orientation as what defined them as a group, and operated as a faction within the Church’s center. I find that as repellent as any other kind of lobby that places a particular human characteristic ahead of the only quality necessary for a church official: dedication to God, God’s people, and the Church. But even then, Francis is making light of the hysteria: “I’ve never seen it on the Vatican ID card.” Not since John XXIII has a Pope deployed humor quite as easily and effectively as this one.
But so far, so banal – if utterly different than the panicked, tightly-wound homophobia of the last Pontiff. Then the revolutionary part:
“When I meet a gay person, I have to distinguish between their being gay and being part of a lobby. If they accept the Lord and have goodwill, who am I to judge them? They shouldn’t be marginalized. The tendency [to homosexuality] is not the problem … they’re our brothers.”
The tendency to homosexuality is not the problem. This is a direct rejection of the last Pope and his predecessor. The key letter was issued in 1986 and the key, horrifying directive issued in 2005 barring all gay men from the priesthood – however they conduct themselves and regardless of their gifts and sincerity. Here’s Ratzinger’s CDF statement on homosexuality, which walked back the previous, much more inclusive, position taken in 1975.
In the discussion which followed the publication of the [1975] Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.
This is the new doctrine Ratzinger introduced into Catholicism: that gay people are uniquely inclined toward an intrinsic moral evil, that there is something inherently immoral about us, that we are in a special class of sub-humans, because our loves – when expressed fully with our bodies as well as souls – are intrinsically evil. This doctrine was so contrary to the Gospels, so callous, and so grotesquely unjust – barring any gay man from entering seminaries solely because of something he cannot change – that it was, for me, one of the low points of my spiritual life in the church. Not only was the Pope attacking the souls of an entire class of human beings, he was deeming them unfit for priestly authority. Child rapists could be tolerated; sincere, celibate gay priests were intrinsically disordered unlike any other group in society. I wrote on this page at the time:
Some of the basic principles of the Catholic faith – treating each individual as equally worthy in God’s eyes, judging people by what they do, not who they are – are being violated by this policy. The astonishing work of gay priests across the centuries and across the globe is being denied and stigmatized and ignored. This is a huge stain on the church – reminiscent of its long, terrible history of anti-Semitism.
And so in a few off-the-cuff remarks, Pope Francis returned the Church’s leadership to the spirit and love of the Gospels. This does not mean a change in the doctrine that all non-procreative non-marital sexual expression – from masturbation to foreplay to homosexual or contracepted sex – is immoral. But what it does is explicitly end the Vatican’s demonization and marginalization of gay people made in the image of God, people who have served the Church from its very beginnings, in ways large and small.
It says a lot about the cramped, fearful, nit-picking dead-end of the last Pontiff that simply asserting human dignity should bring such joy. But it has been clear for a while now that the Holy Spirit and the intercession of Saint Francis are opening the windows of the church again – so that sunlight and transparency and simplicity can flood the previously darkened rooms of a retreating reactionary Vatican.
We have a Pope. By God, we have a Pope.
You Think “Weiner” Is Bad? Ctd
Dish readers continue to pool their vast collective knowledge:
I believe I’ve got a name that is even more preposterous than Bill Boner or Harry Baals or Dick Swett. I once worked with a guy from Zimbabwe named Lovemore Dick.
Don’t believe me? There’s several of them from Zimbabwe and Mozambique on Facebook, along with Lovemore Dickson. Look ’em up. And none of them is the one I know. Seems to be a popular name.
Another reader:
I live half an hour from this Air Force base, named after Eastern NC’s own WW2 hero: Seymour Johnson.
Another:
In the ’80s at SUNY Binghamton, a very nice guy named Gil Dickoff ran for office in the Student Association. He ran against someone named Smith. Gill lost the election. And what was the headline in Pipedream, the student newspaper? “Smith Beats Dickoff Handily”
Another:
There was a family furniture store here in Pasadena named J.H Bigger. You guessed it: The manager’s name was Dick. Dick Bigger.
Another:
In the fine tradition of funny Dick names, I give you: Dick Champion.
Many more contenders after the jump:
I just had to write in. I’ve had two people in my life who could illicit a laugh whenever I heard their name:
1. Dick Beiter. He was my flag football coach when I was 8-9 years old. I swear to god that was his true name. (He had three sons and one daughter. The oldest son had Down’s syndrome and served as the “lineman” when we played; he would go along the sidelines and mark the first down line after each play.)
2. Dick Burns. He was my high school history teacher. Of course, the yearbook says “Richard” but he went by “Dick” among colleagues. Hilarious. Try not to laugh in class!
Another:
Here’s a photo of a now-extinct New Orleans auto dealership: Dick Bohn Ford. (And yes, you pronounce it “bone”.)
Another:
Perhaps you recognize this reputable car dealership from your time on Cape Cod:
Another:
Back in the early 1980s there was a company in Salt Lake City called Richard Long Erection Company, always referred to as Dick Long Erection Co.
(Though Google has no record of it.) Another reader:
As I see that Northwest Ohio is not yet representin’, let me add these two gems to the thread: Former Ohio state representative from Huron County, Richard “Dick” Rench, and retired Toledo judge Peter Handwork.
Another reader:
I’m actually a little surprised you haven’t gotten this one already, but when I did my freshman orientation at UCLA, the counselors told us a number of ridiculous lies leading up the most ridiculous one of all – except that one happened to be true: The University Research Library has a plaque dedicated to the former campus librarian, Hugh G. Dick.
Another gets off the Dicks:
As long as everyone is contributing their favorite unfortunate names, here’s mine: Gay Hitler, a dentist from Circleville, Ohio (born in 1882).
Another:
When my brother attended Minot (ND) State Teacher’s College in the 1960s, there was a girl’s dorm named after a former Dean of Women, Helen Hoar. Can you imagine sending your 18-year-old daughter to live in Hoar Hall?
The mascot of Minot State is the Beavers, and back then photos of selected girls on campus were sent to celebrities every year (think Jackie Gleason, Johnny Carson, etc) so they could choose “Miss Beaver.”
And at the University of North Dakota, the chair of the Speech Department in the ’70s was Hazel Heiman. Campus lore had it that her son’s name was Buster.
Another:
My ex’s sister was known as Kitten … and the family name was Raper. The poor girl.
And another:
Can anything top Professor I. Metin Kunt, who was visiting at Yale when I was an undergrad there? When we saw his name listed in the Blue Book course guide, we were sure it was a joke. But no: here’s a current link to an online sales page for one of his books, with his name on the cover. Was “Ibrahim” so toxic that he had to shorten it to “I”?
Last but certainly not least:
I’m sure I’m not the only baseball fan reading this thread who thought of the Detroit Tiger pitcher Doug Fister, who was obtained two years ago from Seattle in exchange for another pitcher named Charlie Furbush. It is now referred to, whenever possible, as the Fister-Furbush trade.
The View From Your Window
Minturn, Colorado, 1.34 pm
Living With Autism, Ctd
Naoki Higashida’s The Reason I Jump is a memoir that offers readers a glimpse into a mind of a boy with autism (he was 13 years old when the book was published). David Mitchell and his wife, K.A. Yoshida, who have an autistic son, found the book so enlightening that they recently translated it from Japanese. Mitchell describes what he’s learned:
Living in close contact with autism, you do come to understand that autism is indeed a spectrum inhabited by all of us. The majority of us are on the ‘right’ side of a blurry zone on this spectrum where you don’t get diagnosed and don’t need to, but I’ve often thought about kids I was at school with in the benighted 1980s (which were in turn a cakewalk compared to the 1950s, when you shudder to think) who struggled with autism or Asperger’s before the word and diagnosis existed. Same thing with people I’ve met between then and now whom I dismissed as weird-in-a-bad way or selfish or as anal jobsworths or incommunicative beyond the point of rudeness, and now I think, You too, huh? Sorry I didn’t understand at the time.
Like a speech disfluency—I stammer—autism isn’t a disease but an architectural/electronic feature of your brain. The nature of this feature is still a mystery to science and the bad news is, there’s no cure—at best, there are treatments that make autism more liveable-with. The good news is that the brain is a mystery and its potential for plasticity, and for evolving new pathways, has been consistently underrated. Ask recoverers from strokes. I’m not saying you should live in hope for a miraculous cure—I don’t believe in ’em, especially if there’s a trademark or copyright symbol in the neighbourhood—but I am saying you should never underestimate an autistic person’s talent for discovering a key to a lock you never expected to see being opened, from the inside.
Our Surgical Fountain Of Youth
In a long post on the cosmetic surgery industry, Alex Mayyasi considers the clientele:
Rumors of young celebrities going under the knife draw headlines, but the middle-aged dominate the market. Patients 40-54 years old account for 48% of procedures and those above 55 another 26%. Teens and twentysomethings represent under 10% of procedures. While the number of procedures are increasing across all age ranges, they are increasing most quickly among older individuals. The growth of plastic surgery is fueled by the 76 million Baby Boomers. At ages 49 to 68, they already spend over $80 billion on anti-aging products.
The industry will continue to grow as Americans live longer and seek out youthful looks to match their longevity. But these trends suggests that the American cosmetic surgery market is still mostly about making older individuals look like their younger selves, not crafting a new look for young people.
(Left photo: Actress Meg Ryan appears in the role of Betsy Stewart with actor Frank Runyeon, in the role of Steve Andropoulos, as they pose for their wedding photo on the CBS soap opera ‘As The World Turns’ on March 3, 1982 in New York City. By CBS via Getty Images. Right photo: Ryan attends the Biutiful premiere at the Palais des Festivals during the 63rd Annual Cannes Film Festival on May 17, 2010. By Sean Gallup/Getty Images)
Cannabis In Canada
A reader updates us:
I’m aware that Canadian political news doesn’t make much of a dent in the American news cycle, so I thought that you’d enjoy knowing the position taken by the leader of the federal Liberal Party. Justin Trudeau just came out in favour of legalization, going further than the party’s existing stance in favour of decriminalization.
Trudeau won the Liberal leadership in May. He’s the son of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and he’s been doing surprisingly well since taking the reins of the party. He’s a relative newcomer to politics (first won his seat in the 2008 election) and there’s been much speculation about his ability to lead a party given his youth and lack of experience. But he’s been leading in most polls since May, helped out majorly by the fact that the current PM, Conservative Stephen Harper, has been in power since 2006 and has now found himself in the midst of a few scandals that go right to his office, most prominently a spending scandal involving Conservative senators and the PM’s chief of staff secretly paying $90,000 that one senator was order to repay. But that’s another story.
The experience of Colorado and Washington will probably inform the debate up here, and if it looks like a positive experience, Trudeau’s position will likely only gain more traction in a country that’s already pretty pot-friendly. The Conservatives, on the other hand, have made “tough on crime” one of their central positions (despite all evidence that crime in Canada has been going down – even today, Statistics Canada announced that crime is at the lowest level since 1972). They already suffer from the perception that they’re a bunch of angry old assholes, and being rock-solid against softening marijuana laws will only harden that perception, in my opinion.
The Dish 