Category: The Dish

Cockburn vs Berube. Berube seems to be on solid ground.

La Paglia has found one in ancient Egypt:

Perhaps because a movie has yet to be made about her, Hatshepsut (as her name is generally spelled) remains little known. A Los Angeles psychic did tell singer Tina Turner, according to the latter’s autobiography, that in a previous incarnation she had been Hatshepsut. The queen’s grandly terraced mortuary temple, nestled beneath a cliff across the Nile from Luxor, was the scene in 1997 of a horrific massacre of 58 tourists by Islamic terrorists.

Hatshepsut, who ruled Egypt for two decades (circa 1473-1458 B.C.), was a member of the New Kingdom’s illustrious 18th dynasty. The daughter of a pharaoh, Thutmose I, she married her half-brother, Thutmose II, with whom she had a daughter. (Incest was the modus vivendi of Egyptian royalty, who were viewed as living gods.) When her brother’s young son by another wife succeeded him as Thutmose III, Hatshepsut stepped in as regent and wielded power aggressively on her own.

She insisted she was not just queen, but pharaoh – the only example of this curiosity of gender in 3,000 years of Egyptian history. Her sculptures show her sporting female breasts yet wearing the masculine royal kilt, striped head cloth and even the pharaoh’s ceremonial tie-on beard. She became "His Majesty."

"Janning, to be sure, is a tragic figure. We believe he loathed the evil he did. But compassion for the present torture of his soul must not beget forgetfulness of the torture and death of millions by the government of which he was a part. Janning’s record and his fate illuminate the most shattering truth that has emerged from this trial. If he and the other defendants were all depraved perverts – if the leaders of the Third Reich were sadistic monsters and maniacs – these events would have no more moral significance than an earthquake or other natural catastrophes.

But this trial has shown that under the stress of a national crisis, men – even able and extraordinary men – can delude themselves into the commission of crimes and atrocities so vast and heinous as to stagger the imagination. No one who has sat through this trial can ever forget. The sterilization of men because of their political beliefs… The murder of children… How easily that can happen! There are those in our country today, too, who speak of the "protection" of the country. Of "survival". The answer to that is: survival as what? A country isn’t a rock. And it isn’t an extension of one’s self. It’s what it stands for, when standing for something is the most difficult! Before the people of the world – let it now be noted in our decision here that this is what we stand for: justice, truth… and the value of a single human being!" – Chief Judge Dan Haywood, played by Spencer Tracy in "Judgment at Nuremberg," 1961.

A legal reader offers an explanation and a suggestion for the Dems:

1) The 5th amendment gives protection against having to testify in any situation where truthful answers might incriminate.

2) Monica Goodling cannot possibly have substantive guilt here; she is 33 and was working in a subordinate role for aggressive bosses. If she needs protection, it can only be from a technical guilt whose moral weight rightly falls on her superiors. Most likely, she and her lawyers fear that any perceived problems with her prep session for McNulty’s testimony could be construed as indirect "misleading" of Congress, and – by a stretch no one would be likely to make – charged as such.

3) The solution is therefore to offer her immunity from prosecution for any actions her testimony might disclose, and then compel that testimony through subpoena. This is fair, because even if she could be found participating in a conspiracy to mislead Congress, what we already know of the situation makes it extremely unlikely that she was the originator of any such conspiracy.  It is also effective, because while it would immunize her from jeopardy for anything she has done already, it would NOT immunize her from perjury charges should she fail, now, to tell the truth. And she is likely to have knowledge of some pretty central truths.

The Chinese may have more right to their own property than some Americans. Here’s rather spectacular evidence.

The latest USAToday/Gallup poll shows Rudy dropping 13 points and Romney barely existent. Thompson has already made an impact – he has four times the support of Romney, and he isn’t even running yet. In the same poll, 72 percent thnk the Congress should investigate the U.S. attorneys issue.

A new product is unveiled: Guinness marmite. The same consistency as santorum, I wager.

What else is a Bushie gonna do when caught red-handed?

Here’s an eloquent, profound and conservative defense of inclusion:

I write to announce that, effective immediately, The Jewish Theological Seminary will accept qualified gay and lesbian students to our rabbinical and cantorial schools…

We believe that the law can be modified, and therefore should be modified, in accord with our society’s changed knowledge about and moral attitudes toward homosexuality, knowledge and attitudes far different than those of our ancestors that guided their reading of law and tradition. Core Jewish teachings such as the imperative to treat every human being with full respect as a creature in God’s image urge us strongly in this direction. We do not alter established belief and behavior casually. But we are convinced that change in this case is permitted and required, precisely in order to preserve the tradition charged with guiding us in greatly altered circumstances.

Read the whole thing. It’s a landmark decision. It pains me to note that as Episcopalians, reform and conservative Jews, and many other religious groups are grappling with this question with compassion and insight, my own church has actually regressed back to the dark ages with respect to gay seminarians.

A reader captures it:

Wednesday will be the third anniversary of the day my wife Becky died. She battled lung cancer for a year and a half; she was diagnosed at the age of 30 with no risk factors. And the thing about Becky is that she was never, ever dying of cancer, but always living with it. She taught her classes on Friday – she was an assistant professor of mathematics – and died on Sunday, and spent an hour in the hospital on the day she died designing a project for her students for the next semester. She wasn’t in denial of what the prospects were for metastatic lung cancer, but at the same, she spent her days doing the things that made them worth living.

I have read a lot of comments about how having a positive attitude and continuing to move forward with your life gives you the best chance to live longer. I don’t know about that; I hope it is true, but it isn’t always true. What I learned from being her partner during this time is that we don’t have as much control as we’d like about how long we live, but we do have a lot of control over how we live. Becky continued living with cancer the way she had lived before being diagnosed; she was the same mother, wife, friend, teacher, though sometimes lugging around an oxygen machine. That demonstrates the goodness of her life before her diagnosis, and it is the number one lesson I have tried to bring to my widowed life. If I found out today that I had a year to live, and that meant I would change the way I spend my days, then I need to change the way I spend my days now. It is my hope that having someone in the public eye being so open, brave, and grateful for the blessing of this day might cause many other people to examine their lives as well.