Andrew Sullivan

A Profile In Self-Preservation

Weigel pans Charlie Crist’s new book:

The conversions of Charlie Crist, from Republican to independent to Democrat, make up one of the least inspiring tales in modern politics. To take it seriously is to admit you’re the sort of person who takes Scientology stress tests and supplies credit card info to anyone who claims to need help from Nigeria. … This book exists because Crist remains fairly popular, and the Republican who replaced him, conservative hospital tycoon Rick Scott, does not. Democrats have celebrated Crist’s slow embrace of their party, grudgingly, even as Florida’s Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson leaves open the possibility that he’ll run if Crist screws up.

Chotiner’s review is similarly blunt:

“Together, I know we can achieve amazing things,” he writes in the last line. (No, really.) It would be easy to say that Crist is addicted to clichés and soundbites because he chooses to ruminate on votes all day. But that’s too cynical. All these many years and compromises later, Charlie Crist probably can’t think any other way.

The Signs Of Mental Illness

Photographer Lisa Lindvay captures her family coping with her mother’s mental illness:

Lindvay’s intimate photographs of her siblings and father in their home, as they come to terms with her mother’s mental illness, challenge our notion of domestic bliss. The house is a mess—overrun by soda bottles, pizza boxes, computer wires, and detritus lodged in the carpet—and each family member seems to be suspended in their own private world. …

The images are unsparing, but never unkind. The house itself feels neglected, but at the same time it is clearly a comfort to the family, a place where they can be both vulnerable and free. Though things are coming apart there, the home could very well be the structure that holds them together.

Jenna Garrett passes along more images from the series:

Though Lindvay’s mother is absent, the signs of her struggle are present in every frame, each image heavy with abandon and quiet exhaustion. Here we are privy to the deeply private tale of her father and sibling’s lives behind the closed and musty blinds, the grimy floors and junk food artifacts a constant reminder of what is broken and missing.

(Photo by Lisa Lindvay)

Moving At The Speed Of Life

How the pace of a city affects its residents:

Robert Levine and his colleagues have studied the speed of life in cities around the world and across the U.S. In a series of experiments they measured how fast solitary pedestrians in a downtown core covered a distance of 60 feet (being careful to exclude those who are obviously window shopping), timed how long it took to complete a simple commercial transaction, and recorded the accuracy of randomly selected clocks in the downtown business area. They found that places with a faster pace of life also had more robust economies (as measured by GDP per capita, average purchasing power, and average caloric intake), and that people in larger cities tended to move faster than those in less populated areas. They also found truth to the stereotype that people move slower in hotter places.

So as you might expect, fast-moving people are associated with fast-moving economies. But does that faster life translate into greater happiness? In faster places (specifically, economically developed areas of North America, Western Europe, and Asia), people were more likely to smoke, less likely to take the time to help strangers in need, and more likely to die from coronary heart disease. Yet Levine and his colleagues found that residents in faster places tended to report feeling somewhat happier with their lives than those who lived in slower places. A city’s pace of life was indeed “significantly related” to the physical, social, and psychological well-being of its inhabitants.

Filling In The Blanks On Bach

George Stauffer appreciates that John Eliot Gardiner’s recent book on the great composer has insights into his personal character:

Moving beyond the hagiographies of the past, he presents a fallible Bach, a musical genius who on the one hand is deeply committed to illuminating and expanding Luther’s teachings through his sacred vocal works (and therefore comes close to Spitta’s Fifth Evangelist), but on the other hand is a rebellious and resentful musician, harboring a lifelong grudge against authority—a personality disorder stemming from a youth spent among ruffians and abusive teachers. Hiding behind Bach, creator of the Matthew Passion and B-Minor Mass, Gardiner suggests, is Bach “the reformed teenage thug.” In the preface we read: “Emphatically, Bach the man was not a bore.” Neither is Gardiner.

(Video: Glenn Gould plays Bach’s Keyboard Concerto No.1 with Leonard Bernstein and the New York Philharmonic in 1960)

Tracing Jewish Surnames, Ctd

Dara Horn pours cold water on Bennett Muraskin’s theories about Jewish surnames:

[T]he immense attention paid to this article reveals the degree to which many American Jews are still fascinated to learn where they came from. Unfortunately, it also reveals how the members of a group so highly educated in other respects know so little about their own history that they will swallow any “fact” from the Jewish past that comes flitting across their screens. …

“Lieb means lion in Yiddish,” we are told. Actually, leyb means lion in Yiddish (with the vowel sound ey as in “hey”), while lib (the word that sounds like the German word lieb) is a verb form for “love”—as it is in German; this error requires an ignorance of two languages. We are told that Berliner means “husband of Berl,” despite the fact that Berl is a man’s name in Yiddish and Berliner is more recognizably derived from Berlin. We are told that Lieberman means “loverman”; it is actually a term of formal address, as in “dear sir.” We learn that Mendel is derived from Emanuel, when a rudimentary knowledge of Yiddish makes it clear that it is a diminutive of Menahem. There are more like this, but I needn’t bore you.

Putin’s Games

Garry Kasparov compares Sochi to past Olympics run by authoritarian regimes:

There is a distinction here between Sochi 2014 and the Summer Games in Moscow in 1980 and Beijing in 2008. In those cases, the authoritarian propaganda machine was in the service of promoting the achievements of a country and a system. They were dedicated to the greater glory of Communism, the Totalitarian State, the superiority of the system and the athletes it produced. Nobody remembers who presided over the 2008 Games in Beijing and only a few might recall Brezhnev in Moscow. Meanwhile, the chairman of the Russian Olympic Committee never appears on TV or anywhere else, nor does the director of the Sochi Games. No, this spectacle is clearly about the ambitions and hubris of one ubiquitous man, something it has in common with the Summer Games held in Berlin in 1936.

Agalmatophobia At Wellesley

A hyper-realistic statue of a sleepwalking man in his underwear on display at Wellesley College has students demanding its removal, saying it serves as a trigger for victims of sexual assault:

Although the artwork would not likely be legally considered indecent, let alone obscene, student Zoe Magid is less interested in talking about it and more interested in removing it. She believes that, “while it may appear humorous, or thought provoking to some,” such qualities are invalidated by others’ readings of it. Magid asserts that the inanimate object is “a source of apprehension, fear, and triggering thoughts regarding sexual assault for some members of our campus community.” So, she started a petition demanding the university stick Sleepwalker inside the museum, away from the public eye. 722 people, about one-third the school’s student population, have signed.

Charlotte Atler urges the Wellesley women to chill:

There’s something spoiled about our knee-jerk reaction to abolish anything that could be considered even remotely insensitive. The message is, “it’s possible that someone somewhere might feel momentarily bad because of this, so get rid of it right this second! And by the way, you’re an asshole if you don’t agree.”

Marcotte offers a qualified defense of the over-the-top reaction:

I’m sure this story is on its way to a conservative media outlet near you, where some white, privileged man in tighty-whities will roll his eyes about the hysterical feminists, which, in this case, well—good call. Still, one thing I’ve been trying to keep in mind is that the women getting wound up about the statue are really young and just starting to explore the identity of “feminist.” College is a time for taking everything too far, from drinking beer to sports fandom to sexual drama to using your fancy new vocabulary words picked up in women’s studies courses. Which doesn’t mean that one should refrain from having a laugh over this, of course. Let’s hope Fred Armisen and Carrie Brownstein are taking careful notes for the next season of Portlandia.

Update from a reader:

Interesting post. While I sincerely sympathize with anyone who may consider this statue upsetting as a trigger from sexual assault, my first reaction to it was completely different. When I look at it, I see a confused, elderly man suffering from dementia or Alzheimer’s. My father has Alzheimer’s, and is increasingly confused and sometimes wanders off. Our family fears he may wander off and get lost someday, and who knows, it could be in the middle of his night, when he’s in his underwear. Just another way to view it …

(Photo: An onlooker views a sculpture entitled ‘Sleepwalker’ on the campus of Wellesley College on February 6, 2014 in Wellesley, Massachusetts. The sculpture is part of an exhibit by artist Tony Matelli at the college’s Davis Museum. By Darren McCollester/Getty Images)

Yglesias Award Nominee

“One need not endorse same-sex marriage to believe that the rising tide of anti-gay legislation in other parts of the world is quite troubling, that gays deserve to be defended against persecution, and that the Christian church is one institution that might have some power, at least in some nations and in some circumstances, to make a positive difference. Quite apart from the moral merits of this approach, think about the witness it would signal to the world if Christians spoke out in defense of gays in Nigeria and elsewhere and why they deserve protection against imprisonment and violence” – Pete Wehner, Commentary.

Woody Allen Keeps Digging, Ctd

We’ve been airing a lot of pain and trauma lately in discussing the Woody Allen-Mia Farrow-Dylan Farrow agony, and I’ve tried to keep the debate as open as possible (although my bias lies with those alleging childhood molestation, and not against). But we just got this email from a longtime emailer and Dishhead (she calls herself an “old broad”) who adds some moxie to the defense of Woody:

Sure, Woody Allen’s response is full of anger. But it’s a good thing, for which I don’t blame him in the slightest. There’s no point in writing a rebuttal that sounds phony. He’s pissed off. It’s hard to imagine how hurtful, humiliating, and confusing it is to be accused of such a dreadful crime. I don’t believe he did it, which isn’t to say that I know a damn thing. But do I blame the man for not being at his best at this moment? Absolutely not.

And the pearl clutching is annoying as hell. Is he self-absorbed and childish? Of course. His movies have reflected this for decades. Is he a pedophile? I simply don’t know and likely never will! Is what happened with Soon-Yi Previn anything to gloat about? Evidently not – but one thing I don’t see discussed here is that this doesn’t sound like a family unit as much as it does a social experiment that went horribly wrong because no one was really committed to anything.

I think the three Farrows, including the young lady, have handled this in a most unserious way. That damages their ability to convince “to these aged eyes.” I’m still seething, really, that the NYT Edit Board and Kristof will most likely get away with this stunt.

Two serious lapses in judgment on the paper’s part (if you count Bill Keiler’s strange swerve) in very short order. Identity crisis on their part? Inability to comprehend what blogging really means and amounts to? Who knows – but shame on them! Kristof, in particular, owes his readers an explanation beyond the weak sauce he used as intro to the Open Letter. Maybe the Dish staff can offer intervention services and teach them a thing or two.

I think journalists not wishing to get into the he said-she said quicksand are being way too lenient in not pointing out the larger issue here and it has nothing to do with childhood sexual abuse.

If Dylan Farrow wants to pursue this by whatever legal means are still available to her, more power to her. But, if not, learn to make your case with a minimum of grace and dignity – stop asking Mommy’s friends to move over so that you can vent in public, and stop with all the windblown drama. To her family members: cut out the tweets and snark and the other sophomoric BS. If my child had been abused and sexually molested, I sure as hell wouldn’t be trying to punk the perpetrator via tweets on a Sunday night while babbling about getting ice-cream and switching over to Girls! Nor would I have dropped the case over 20 years ago. Being coy and a total bitch about the paternity of Ronan (ick!) is also not so smart if the aim is to spearhead a worthy cause on your daughter’s behalf.

I resent, as an old broad who knows a thing or two about something or other, being told that unless I side with the alleged victim here I am somehow a proponent of “rape culture.” We have lots of problems in this country, for sure, but this isn’t Pakistan or Afghanistan. Want your claim to be taken seriously? Pursue it like a grown-up. Or, really, hate to say it, but deal with it in private and STFU about in public.

These women with their outrage have lost me. This isn’t feminism in my book. It’s media lynch mob justice. In other news, Blue Jasmine wears even less well on a third viewing. The San Francisco he creates is truly truly bizarre and Cate Blanchett, so talented, succeeds in giving a Meryl Streep at her most technically gifted and hollow performance. Watch Hollywood tell Mia to get over herself and shower the damn flick with every possible award.

Is Boehner Backpedaling On Immigration Reform? Ctd

Chuck Schumer has a simple solution to Republicans’ professed concern that Obama can’t be trusted to enforce a new immigration reform law:

Appearing on “Meet the Press” Sunday, Schumer, the Democratic senator from New York, floated a new proposal designed to win Republican support for an immigration bill—a proposal designed specifically to address concerns that Boehner raised last week, when the Speaker esssentially declared that efforts to pass reform were at an impasse. At a press conference, Boehner indicated that his fellow House Republicans won’t support an immigration bill because they don’t trust President Obama to enforce it. Fine, Schumer said on Sunday—let’s postpone the new law’s effective date until 2017, when Obama isn’t president anymore.

Tobin tips his hat to Schumer for outsmarting the GOP:

[B]y giving in to Republicans on this point and putting off implementation of the law until after Obama leaves the White House, all Schumer has done is to expose something that was already obvious: Republicans won’t vote for an immigration reform bill under virtually any circumstances.

Boehner immediately rejected the proposal, saying it would leave no incentive for Obama to enforce current law for the remainder of his term. Kristol suggests that Republicans use Schumer’s own logic to kill reform:

So even Schumer is willing to have no legislation go into effect until 2017. In other words, the main sponsor of the Senate immigration bill, who has previously pretended immigration reform is urgently important, is acknowledging that in fact there is no urgency to act. But if nothing needs to go into effect until 2017, then Republicans have an even simpler solution: Do nothing. Don’t enact legislation until 2017.

John Dickerson doubts the GOP can pass a reform bill, simply because the forces working against it are too strong:

Here is a key point: The conservative activists and grassroots groups who can punish members who vote for a bad immigration bill are stronger than the forces that are pushing for passage of the immigration bill. This is the shorthand Republicans use to explain the political balance of power. “The Chamber [of Commerce] and downtown [lobbyists] want it,” says one GOP leadership aide, “but they’re not going to primary anyone.” Absent the clarifying force of an outside group putting a lot of money or enthusiasm behind a challenger, Republicans in individual districts don’t face pressure from minority voters. There are 108 majority-minority districts and Republicans only hold nine of them. Of the 24 House Republicans who represent a district where the Latino population is 25 percent or higher, only a handful are vulnerable and could therefore be affected by a bold move on this issue that would affect voter opinions.

Larison notes the gap between the GOP leadership and the rest of the party:

The House leaders are working on the assumption that passing an immigration bill is both desirable and beneficial to their party. Most of their party believes neither of these things, so they’re bound to be wary of anything that the leaders tell them in an attempt to sell them on what most of them regard as bad legislation. The difficulty that Boehner and his lieutenants have is not just that Republicans don’t trust Obama, but that most Republicans also don’t trust their own leaders on this issue, and with good reason.