No way! The FBI's investigating Mike Easley? For what, speeding? You know what, actually I knew it - there's no way someone could be that bland, that unmemorable or that uninspiring. Easley's mannequin-like demeanor has to have been a front for all kinds of diabolical conspiracies, like Denzel in "American Gangster" or something. And now the Feds are going to dig it all out.
Oh, wait, they think he did what? Flew on a private plane without reporting the expenses as campaign contributions?
Sigh. It figures.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Lane Kiffin is thisclose to attaining Permanent Douchebag status
There are two issues I want to cover here, one simpler than the other. The University of Tennessee Volunteers have granted a full athletic scholarship to defensive end/tight end Daniel Hood, who aside from being an athletic and academic standout at his private high school, helped an older friend rape his cousin when he was 13 years old. You can read a lot about this, but I liked Dennis Dodd's take at CBS.com, and his follow-up to the Hood apologists who criticized his first piece.
My two issues are intertwined, because how can I parse what an a-hole Lane Kiffin is turning out to be without determining to what extent Hood deserves a second chance*, and I really don't want this post to turn into that debate. I want to talk about how Kiffin is on his very last straw with me. One more ethically dubious move, and he's going over the edge into the Permanent Douchebag category (a slightly lesser ring of hell than Irredeemable Waste of Oxygen, where Michael Vick and Rush Limbaugh live). Because of this:
The former Tennessee staff had been recruiting [Hood]. But last May, one of Phillip Fulmer's assistants called Hood's dad and told him that they were no longer pursuing his son at that point. "I took it as they were dropping me," said Hood, who had planned to commit to the Vols that next week. When Kiffin came aboard, he contacted Hood a little more than two weeks after taking the job and arranged a meeting.
When I consider Kiffin, I feel like the only kid in the parade who can tell that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes. A few years ago he was named the youngest head coach in the NFL - but the problem was that he was coaching the Oakland Raiders. Now, let's think about this... Kiffin's handsome, charismatic, has good coaching genes, and miraculously escaped blame for his 5-15 tenure at Oakland because everybody in football knows that Raiders owner Al Davis is a crackpot. So now, instead of getting busted back down to assistant like most people would after that kind of record, Kiffin gets to be the highest-paid college football coach in the country. Am I the only one who's a little...... meh?
Then he started out his gig as Tennessee's head coach by first poaching his dad from the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, after which the Bucs lost their four remaining games and missed the playoffs. Then he poached recruits from Florida while accusing Florida's Coach Urban Meyer of some kind of wacky reverse-poaching, for which the NCAA slapped Kiffin's wrist. And now he's signed a convicted rapist that 27 other colleges - including, initially, Tennessee - also looked at and decided to turn down. So, yeah, the Kiffin Era is not inspiring me as a high-character program so far.
Thank heaven for Pat Summitt. Otherwise I'd never be able to walk into my grandmother's house ever again.
*Oh, what the hell, for the record: Hood has paid what a court decided was his debt to society, and under our system he should be allowed to return to that society. I'm a big believer in rehabilition for criminals. Going to college is a second chance. Going to college free of charge simply because you have athletic talent with few or no questions asked, on the other hand, is not.
My two issues are intertwined, because how can I parse what an a-hole Lane Kiffin is turning out to be without determining to what extent Hood deserves a second chance*, and I really don't want this post to turn into that debate. I want to talk about how Kiffin is on his very last straw with me. One more ethically dubious move, and he's going over the edge into the Permanent Douchebag category (a slightly lesser ring of hell than Irredeemable Waste of Oxygen, where Michael Vick and Rush Limbaugh live). Because of this:
The former Tennessee staff had been recruiting [Hood]. But last May, one of Phillip Fulmer's assistants called Hood's dad and told him that they were no longer pursuing his son at that point. "I took it as they were dropping me," said Hood, who had planned to commit to the Vols that next week. When Kiffin came aboard, he contacted Hood a little more than two weeks after taking the job and arranged a meeting.
When I consider Kiffin, I feel like the only kid in the parade who can tell that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes. A few years ago he was named the youngest head coach in the NFL - but the problem was that he was coaching the Oakland Raiders. Now, let's think about this... Kiffin's handsome, charismatic, has good coaching genes, and miraculously escaped blame for his 5-15 tenure at Oakland because everybody in football knows that Raiders owner Al Davis is a crackpot. So now, instead of getting busted back down to assistant like most people would after that kind of record, Kiffin gets to be the highest-paid college football coach in the country. Am I the only one who's a little...... meh?
Then he started out his gig as Tennessee's head coach by first poaching his dad from the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, after which the Bucs lost their four remaining games and missed the playoffs. Then he poached recruits from Florida while accusing Florida's Coach Urban Meyer of some kind of wacky reverse-poaching, for which the NCAA slapped Kiffin's wrist. And now he's signed a convicted rapist that 27 other colleges - including, initially, Tennessee - also looked at and decided to turn down. So, yeah, the Kiffin Era is not inspiring me as a high-character program so far.
Thank heaven for Pat Summitt. Otherwise I'd never be able to walk into my grandmother's house ever again.
*Oh, what the hell, for the record: Hood has paid what a court decided was his debt to society, and under our system he should be allowed to return to that society. I'm a big believer in rehabilition for criminals. Going to college is a second chance. Going to college free of charge simply because you have athletic talent with few or no questions asked, on the other hand, is not.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Trust Women!
You simply must read Dr. Radha Lewis' post on Feministing about her work as one of the few doctors who provide second-trimester abortions - which are perfectly legal, but a little too difficult medically (and politically) for many doctors.
Most second-trimester abortions are performed for what Senator and former presidential candidate John McCain called (in scare quotes, no less) the health of the mother. Dr. Lewis shares a case where the woman's physical health was at issue, and another her mental health (a suicidal 18-year old whose family literally imprisoned her throughout her early pregnancy). This post is enlightening, reminding us that every woman who seeks an abortion does so for a different reason.
Which is why the comments to the post are interesting... Being Feministing, most are supportive of the pro-choice position. But a guy from a pro-life Catholic group shows up and - while he's respectful - it's clear that he's coming from a radically different point-of-view. He does nothing to convice me that "pro-lifers" are actually pro-women's lives, being as how he seems to argue that the morality of terminating a pregnancy should be up for public debate, rather than a private decision. (Because women are public property, of course...)
When anti-choicers raise the spectre of a woman carrying a baby for several months and then casually deciding that, meh, she's just not into it, they're more than disingenuous. They're sexist. They're coming from a place of deep distrust of women's ability to make decisions. I've got news for you: any pregnant woman who simply doesn't want to have a child will schedule that abortion ASAP. If a woman's getting an abortion at 21 weeks, or 24 weeks, there are almost always other issues at play - tragic, heart-wrenching circumatances that are not remotely the business of the president, my Congressman, the guy from the pro-life Catholic group or anyone else.
Most second-trimester abortions are performed for what Senator and former presidential candidate John McCain called (in scare quotes, no less) the health of the mother. Dr. Lewis shares a case where the woman's physical health was at issue, and another her mental health (a suicidal 18-year old whose family literally imprisoned her throughout her early pregnancy). This post is enlightening, reminding us that every woman who seeks an abortion does so for a different reason.
Which is why the comments to the post are interesting... Being Feministing, most are supportive of the pro-choice position. But a guy from a pro-life Catholic group shows up and - while he's respectful - it's clear that he's coming from a radically different point-of-view. He does nothing to convice me that "pro-lifers" are actually pro-women's lives, being as how he seems to argue that the morality of terminating a pregnancy should be up for public debate, rather than a private decision. (Because women are public property, of course...)
When anti-choicers raise the spectre of a woman carrying a baby for several months and then casually deciding that, meh, she's just not into it, they're more than disingenuous. They're sexist. They're coming from a place of deep distrust of women's ability to make decisions. I've got news for you: any pregnant woman who simply doesn't want to have a child will schedule that abortion ASAP. If a woman's getting an abortion at 21 weeks, or 24 weeks, there are almost always other issues at play - tragic, heart-wrenching circumatances that are not remotely the business of the president, my Congressman, the guy from the pro-life Catholic group or anyone else.
Just for sh*ts and giggles, let's consider health care
Joe Conason has a piece up on Salon.com about how right-wing opponents of health care reform are brainstorming how to market their position.
Maximizing fear is the true message…Groping for that fear button, Luntz asked his polling sample, "Which two concepts or phrases would FRIGHTEN you the most?" The first was healthcare rationing, an idea that isn't being contemplated by either the Obama administration or congressional Democrats (although healthcare is rationed by price under the current system). The second was "one-size-fits-all healthcare," a phrase that is devoid of any content but that conjures images of federal regimentation. Third came "healthcare by lobbyist," the plan that has been implemented by the insurance and pharmaceutical industry, with eager collaboration by the Republican leadership, for decades.
"Socialized medicine" came in a feeble fourth, barely ahead of "politicized healthcare," and scaring only about a quarter of the respondents, which demonstrates once again that the S-word has lost most of its terrorizing mojo. ("Hillary-care," presumably included for old times' sake, scares only about 10 percent of voters.)
It would be really nice if we could have an honest debate about health care reform in this country. And by “honest” I mean free of influence by people whose fear of losing their jobs or political clout. I would just be in heaven if the conversation about health care centered on what was best for the health and prosperity of our citizens, and not some lobbyist’s or HMO’s bottom line.
I’m still trying to educate myself on this, but this is what I understand so far: in a “single-payer” system, the single payer is a government agency, which negotiates directly with the health care provider. In other words, instead of your doctor’s office billing Blue Cross, they’d bill Agency X. Everyone would bill Agency X. Presumably, your doctor’s office would then charge less for services because running everything through Agency X is a hell of a lot cheaper than dealing with 47 dozen different insurance companies. From what I understand, your actual medical care at Fill-in-the-Blank Family Practice shouldn’t change at all.
We already have single-payer programs in this country in the form of Medicare and the VA. Results vary. But no more than they do at my local public hospital, or with my private allergy doctor.
There’s also the related issue of medical records. In Taiwan, every member of the single payer system has an electronic card containing his or her information. Taiwan.
I have the same issues with government-administrated health care as I would for government-administrated anything. Namely, public systems usually don’t move very quickly – there are just too many layers for them to go through. Before I could really get behind any form of public health care, I would need to have confidence that the parameters of that health care wouldn’t swing back and forth with every election: now abortion is covered (for instance), and now it isn’t.
That’s all the pragmatic stuff. There are larger philosophical issues as well… And maybe the theory doesn’t have a place here, but it’s something I’d like to consider anyway. The people who oppose public health care talk about “moral hazard,” kind of the flip side of the “problem of the common” that we liberals are always going on about. Both deal with the alleged tendency of people to take advantage of the public pool, using more than their share. In practice, many conservatives warn that any form of public health care will be a blank check for patients or doctors to run up unnecessary procedures, clogging the system so that actual sick people can’t get the care they need.
If you dig deeper into their argument, you find the real worry: that people who don’t contribute to the system will benefit from the system, which in their zero-sum mentality would mean that the people who do do what they should don’t get their fair share. In my first year at college, in a debate on this very subject, one of my opponents argued as much – why don’t I pay for mine and you pay for yours, and we just leave it at that?
My answer? There’s more than one kind of moral hazard. For some, the prospect that someone somewhere might be getting something he/she may or may not “deserve” (based on someone else’s judgment) is unconscionable. And then some of us think that a working family having to declare bankruptcy because of their medical bills is even worse. I guess it just depends on your point of view.
(That’s why you never hear conservatives complain about the VA. Military service people and their families have earned medical care in their view, and the poor and elderly on Medicare haven’t.)
There’s also the quite valid argument that public health care changes the way citizens relate to their government. It goes from being a tool to stabilize society by allowing individuals to pool resources to being a monolithic entity that truly governs from the top down.
As I said, I think this is a fundamentally important conversation that our country needs to have, free of ideology and influence-peddling. Not that I foresee that happening any time soon, but it would be nice.
Maximizing fear is the true message…Groping for that fear button, Luntz asked his polling sample, "Which two concepts or phrases would FRIGHTEN you the most?" The first was healthcare rationing, an idea that isn't being contemplated by either the Obama administration or congressional Democrats (although healthcare is rationed by price under the current system). The second was "one-size-fits-all healthcare," a phrase that is devoid of any content but that conjures images of federal regimentation. Third came "healthcare by lobbyist," the plan that has been implemented by the insurance and pharmaceutical industry, with eager collaboration by the Republican leadership, for decades.
"Socialized medicine" came in a feeble fourth, barely ahead of "politicized healthcare," and scaring only about a quarter of the respondents, which demonstrates once again that the S-word has lost most of its terrorizing mojo. ("Hillary-care," presumably included for old times' sake, scares only about 10 percent of voters.)
It would be really nice if we could have an honest debate about health care reform in this country. And by “honest” I mean free of influence by people whose fear of losing their jobs or political clout. I would just be in heaven if the conversation about health care centered on what was best for the health and prosperity of our citizens, and not some lobbyist’s or HMO’s bottom line.
I’m still trying to educate myself on this, but this is what I understand so far: in a “single-payer” system, the single payer is a government agency, which negotiates directly with the health care provider. In other words, instead of your doctor’s office billing Blue Cross, they’d bill Agency X. Everyone would bill Agency X. Presumably, your doctor’s office would then charge less for services because running everything through Agency X is a hell of a lot cheaper than dealing with 47 dozen different insurance companies. From what I understand, your actual medical care at Fill-in-the-Blank Family Practice shouldn’t change at all.
We already have single-payer programs in this country in the form of Medicare and the VA. Results vary. But no more than they do at my local public hospital, or with my private allergy doctor.
There’s also the related issue of medical records. In Taiwan, every member of the single payer system has an electronic card containing his or her information. Taiwan.
I have the same issues with government-administrated health care as I would for government-administrated anything. Namely, public systems usually don’t move very quickly – there are just too many layers for them to go through. Before I could really get behind any form of public health care, I would need to have confidence that the parameters of that health care wouldn’t swing back and forth with every election: now abortion is covered (for instance), and now it isn’t.
That’s all the pragmatic stuff. There are larger philosophical issues as well… And maybe the theory doesn’t have a place here, but it’s something I’d like to consider anyway. The people who oppose public health care talk about “moral hazard,” kind of the flip side of the “problem of the common” that we liberals are always going on about. Both deal with the alleged tendency of people to take advantage of the public pool, using more than their share. In practice, many conservatives warn that any form of public health care will be a blank check for patients or doctors to run up unnecessary procedures, clogging the system so that actual sick people can’t get the care they need.
If you dig deeper into their argument, you find the real worry: that people who don’t contribute to the system will benefit from the system, which in their zero-sum mentality would mean that the people who do do what they should don’t get their fair share. In my first year at college, in a debate on this very subject, one of my opponents argued as much – why don’t I pay for mine and you pay for yours, and we just leave it at that?
My answer? There’s more than one kind of moral hazard. For some, the prospect that someone somewhere might be getting something he/she may or may not “deserve” (based on someone else’s judgment) is unconscionable. And then some of us think that a working family having to declare bankruptcy because of their medical bills is even worse. I guess it just depends on your point of view.
(That’s why you never hear conservatives complain about the VA. Military service people and their families have earned medical care in their view, and the poor and elderly on Medicare haven’t.)
There’s also the quite valid argument that public health care changes the way citizens relate to their government. It goes from being a tool to stabilize society by allowing individuals to pool resources to being a monolithic entity that truly governs from the top down.
As I said, I think this is a fundamentally important conversation that our country needs to have, free of ideology and influence-peddling. Not that I foresee that happening any time soon, but it would be nice.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
On ta-tas
Hoo-boy.
It turns out that Carrie Prejean's 15 minutes aren't quite up yet, courtesy of the MSM's fascination with her boobies. Or, more accurately, how the alleged existence of her breast implants and "nude" (read: less revealing than a swim-suit) photos intersects with her professed "Biblicly correct" views on same-sex marriage.
There's an entire doctoral thesis' worth of material here exploring when it's permissable for women to have opinions (not when implants are involved, apparently), and why it's okay for a pageant organization to cut up a woman's body but then threaten to strip her of her title when she says or does something that butts up against their skewed standards.
It's easy to defend people that you approve of. It's not easy for me to defend Carrie Prejean. I think her views on same-sex civil rights are elementary and based on a faulty interpretation of both scripture and law. I think she's letting herself be used by bigots who wouldn't give her the time of day if she weighed 300 pounds and had bushy eyebrows. But I also think that, as poor as her reasoning is, she has every right to her opinion. I also think that the nudie-picture/implant shaming of her is as sexist as when Laura Ingraham tried to shut down Meghan McCain by calling her "plus-sized." As Feministing wrote today, it's not okay to fight homophobia with misogyny.
There are hundreds, if not thousands of men and non-beauty queen women who've said the same thing as Prejean, but no one's fixating on them. Why? Because in this country in 2009 it's still perfectly acceptable to look at a woman first, and - once you approve of what you've seen - listen to her second. And though Prejean may not want to claim us, that's why the work that feminists are doing should matter to her.
It turns out that Carrie Prejean's 15 minutes aren't quite up yet, courtesy of the MSM's fascination with her boobies. Or, more accurately, how the alleged existence of her breast implants and "nude" (read: less revealing than a swim-suit) photos intersects with her professed "Biblicly correct" views on same-sex marriage.
There's an entire doctoral thesis' worth of material here exploring when it's permissable for women to have opinions (not when implants are involved, apparently), and why it's okay for a pageant organization to cut up a woman's body but then threaten to strip her of her title when she says or does something that butts up against their skewed standards.
It's easy to defend people that you approve of. It's not easy for me to defend Carrie Prejean. I think her views on same-sex civil rights are elementary and based on a faulty interpretation of both scripture and law. I think she's letting herself be used by bigots who wouldn't give her the time of day if she weighed 300 pounds and had bushy eyebrows. But I also think that, as poor as her reasoning is, she has every right to her opinion. I also think that the nudie-picture/implant shaming of her is as sexist as when Laura Ingraham tried to shut down Meghan McCain by calling her "plus-sized." As Feministing wrote today, it's not okay to fight homophobia with misogyny.
There are hundreds, if not thousands of men and non-beauty queen women who've said the same thing as Prejean, but no one's fixating on them. Why? Because in this country in 2009 it's still perfectly acceptable to look at a woman first, and - once you approve of what you've seen - listen to her second. And though Prejean may not want to claim us, that's why the work that feminists are doing should matter to her.
When we're finished with the whales... Save the GOP!
Some years ago I was talking with a member of the College Republicans chapter at my alma mater, and she mentioned that when the chapter went to national conventions they were often the only woman-led chapter present. She even joked about how it took a chapter from a women's college to have any female representation at College Republican events at all. Listening to her, I wondered two things: 1) would an advantageous male-female ratio be worth subjugating my most deeply held beliefs?, and 2) how could an intelligent young woman make the observation that Republicans are not friendly to female leadership and yet still willingly be part of their organization?
I thought about that today reading Jack Cafferty's blog post on CNN.com about how the GOP can attract women. The comments back to his question all seem to boil down to the perception that Republicans intrinsically don't respect the agency of women, reflected in their party's views on everything from reproductive rights (chicks can't handle 'em) to equal pay (bad for business). It's a portion of the larger problem that the GOP has no empathy for people who for whatever reason lack privilege.
Several prominent Republicans have attempted to start the process of refocusing what the party should be about. I hope the National Council for a New America involves more soul-searching than mere re-branding - the difference between actually coming up with new and productive ideas and just coming up with new ways to sell the same old talking points. I hope they take a sincere look at why so many people think they're bigots, and if that means apologizing for calling the NAACP "commies" and getting out of the way of same-sex marriage rights, then so be it.
Because - deep breath - America needs the Republican party. Or rather, we need multiple parties, at least one of which should be more conservative than the others. Competition produces better ideas (you'd think the free market guys would get that), and our entire system of government was built on that concept. But somewhere along the line (about 1964) the GOP became more concerned with winning than with governing.
That's why you've got Mike Pence going on "Hardball" hemming and hawing when Chris Matthews asked him of he believed in evolution. (Evolution, really? What is this, 1850?) This is the party that fought for African American civil rights at great political cost, even loss of life, barely a century ago. It's truly sad to see the descendents of that legacy sink to race-baiting an war-mongering. It took the Democrats a long time to leave that kind of thing behind; our country would only be better off if the GOP did the same.
Rachel Maddow had a great interview with Rep. Ron Paul last night. Now, I don't think I would ever vote for Paul because his ideas are so radically divergent from mine - but at least he HAS ideas. Ideas based on something other than idealogy and saying no. Paul isn't just against positions, he's FOR things.
Every political party has high tides and ebb tides, and the ones that survive do so because they adapt to a changing world. If the GOP wants to stay relevant - and I honestly, non-snarkily hope that it does - its members need to listen to the Ron Pauls and the Colin Powells more, and listen to the unelected, unaccountable fringe elements like this guy less.
I thought about that today reading Jack Cafferty's blog post on CNN.com about how the GOP can attract women. The comments back to his question all seem to boil down to the perception that Republicans intrinsically don't respect the agency of women, reflected in their party's views on everything from reproductive rights (chicks can't handle 'em) to equal pay (bad for business). It's a portion of the larger problem that the GOP has no empathy for people who for whatever reason lack privilege.
Several prominent Republicans have attempted to start the process of refocusing what the party should be about. I hope the National Council for a New America involves more soul-searching than mere re-branding - the difference between actually coming up with new and productive ideas and just coming up with new ways to sell the same old talking points. I hope they take a sincere look at why so many people think they're bigots, and if that means apologizing for calling the NAACP "commies" and getting out of the way of same-sex marriage rights, then so be it.
Because - deep breath - America needs the Republican party. Or rather, we need multiple parties, at least one of which should be more conservative than the others. Competition produces better ideas (you'd think the free market guys would get that), and our entire system of government was built on that concept. But somewhere along the line (about 1964) the GOP became more concerned with winning than with governing.
That's why you've got Mike Pence going on "Hardball" hemming and hawing when Chris Matthews asked him of he believed in evolution. (Evolution, really? What is this, 1850?) This is the party that fought for African American civil rights at great political cost, even loss of life, barely a century ago. It's truly sad to see the descendents of that legacy sink to race-baiting an war-mongering. It took the Democrats a long time to leave that kind of thing behind; our country would only be better off if the GOP did the same.
Rachel Maddow had a great interview with Rep. Ron Paul last night. Now, I don't think I would ever vote for Paul because his ideas are so radically divergent from mine - but at least he HAS ideas. Ideas based on something other than idealogy and saying no. Paul isn't just against positions, he's FOR things.
Every political party has high tides and ebb tides, and the ones that survive do so because they adapt to a changing world. If the GOP wants to stay relevant - and I honestly, non-snarkily hope that it does - its members need to listen to the Ron Pauls and the Colin Powells more, and listen to the unelected, unaccountable fringe elements like this guy less.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Fun with right-wing fundie logic
So, when Perez Hilton called Miss California a "bitch" because she said she opposes gay marriage, that was awful, Prejean was being persecuted for her honestly held beliefs, etc. But when another female celebrity makes comments that seem to support gay civil rights (or at the very least, to not crap on them), it's perfectly okay to say that she's "not the positive role model she was once thought to be" and that "Clearly she is confused and does not understand the Bible."
Got the distinction? Yeah, me neither.
Got the distinction? Yeah, me neither.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)