Thursday, June 04, 2009
Ain’t too proud to bleg
When the puck drops tonight I’ll be somewhere in the air between Philadelphia and Portland, Oregon, far from any electronical device that might enable me to watch game 4. Since this is the game that will determine the tenor of the series, damn. Damn damn damn. So please feel free—those of you who plan to catch the game—to use this thread to let me know how the game is going. I’ll catch les faits saillants on nhl.com around 10 pm Pacific time, of course, but if any of you want to provide liveblogging coverage, I’d really appreciate it, because reading through real-time blog commentary on games is lots of fun. For me, that is. Jazzbumpa, I’m looking to you to catch the Penguins putting seven, eight, even nine guys on the ice, and JP Stormcrow, I hope you can balance out the commentary by pointing out the Red Wings’ innovative use of the pick and roll.
Also, while I’m off at Reed College, I’ll also be missing Jamie’s debut in this. Damn. Damn damn damn damn damn and damn. We just dropped him off at his dorm this morning (!!), and he gets his first taste of statewide competition tomorrow. Opening ceremonies tonight (Janet will be there with videocam), athletes’ dance is tomorrow night. Wish Jamie luck, folks!
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Time in a bottle
You know by now that in the campus culture wars it’s always 1987, Allan Bloom has set the terms for discussion, Shakespeare has been displaced by Alice Walker (or Maya Angelou, in this just-published-yet-1987ish screed by Harry “I Used To Be a Liberal, But Since Murphy Brown Had a Baby I’ve Become Outraged By Women Who Have As Much Sex As I Used To” Stein), and deconstruction is a really big menace to Western Civilization. (Though I should probably update that old Crooked Timber post: two years ago, in the course of criticizing Ross Douthat, I wondered “why a once-respected literary magazine like the Atlantic would want to offer gigs to people who find it ‘obviously’ depressing that writers like Woolf and Morrison are widely read and studied,” and now I should be wondering why such people get gigs on the New York Times op-ed page. Who knows? Perhaps so that they can continue to work out their embarrassing anxieties about women in a public forum.)
Well, to understand the Sonia Sotomayor fracas you have to realize that the timespace confundulum has actually fractured into two frozen moments, one having to do with the sudden appearance of emotional, abrasive Latinas and their strange cuisine amid the eating clubs of Princeton, and the other having to do with ungrateful women of color getting named to positions where they can dole out their reverse-racist versions of “justice.” Yes, that’s right, it’s always 1972 and it’s always 1993—and at the same time.
I didn’t get admitted to anything in 1972. But in 1974, I was a freshman at Regis High School in New York, where I heard one of my more conservative classmates say, in the course of a discussion about affirmative action, that he had been the victim of reverse discrimination for too long. Exasperated to the point of flummoxation, I noted in reply that (a) affirmative action showed up only yesterday, (b) you’re thirteen years old, d00d, and (c) you’re attending an elite, tuition-free Jesuit high school that does not admit women. And the reason I remember that moment 35 years later is that it has never gone away: guys like Stuart Taylor and Fred Barnes are still thirteen years old, still the victims of reverse discrimination, and still questioning the credentials of smart women while campaigning for the protection of conservative white men under the Endangered Species Act. Taylor graduated from Princeton in 1970; Barnes from the University of Virginia in 1965. Neither of them had to compete with women for admission; Princeton started opening its doors to that half of the population in 1969, Virginia a year later. That’s why guys like these worry so much about the decline of standards in college admissions since 1970, you understand. Because things were tougher and people were smarter when white guys only had to compete with 44 percent of the population for admission to elite colleges, positions of power and influence, and so forth.
(Though as a Regis graduate, I have to say that if Barnes had taken four years of Latin, he might not say such world-historically stupid things as “you know, there’s some schools and maybe Princeton’s not one of them, where if you don’t get Summa Cum Laude then or some kind of Cum Laude, you then, you’re a D+ student,” because he would know that “summa” is Latin for “teh most r0xx0r,” and not for “some kind of.” Then again, he would probably say some other world-historically stupid things anyway. There are some things even four years of Latin can’t fix.)
“Ah, that explains everything, Michael,” you say, “except that it doesn’t. You can’t tell me that Jeffrey Rosen’s exercise in
gossip-mongering elite journalism, for which blogging is to blame, has anything to do with its author’s educational history.”
Right you are, threadbare rhetorical device interlocutor! The Rosen thing has nothing to do with 1972. That’s where the it’s-always-1993 part comes in! Lani Guinier has just been nominated to head the civil rights division of the Department of Justice, and Even the Liberal New Republic has just published its editorial, “Withdraw Guinier.”
See, Republicans know, or seem to know, that they don’t have enough Senate votes to reject Sotomayor, and don’t have the political capital (though they probably have enough hypocrisy left in the national hypocrisy reserve) to mount a filibuster. Ah, but if they can only get Obama to withdraw her name—what a lovely embarrassment to the new administration that would be. And what good times those were for Beltway conservatives! Tell me again why Clinton fans believe that their guy knew how to stand up to the right-wing noise machine?
Here’s how we know that we’ve never left Lani Guinier Land:
– Faux outrage over “controversial” out-of-context “identity politics” remarks, check;
– Complaints about weird, unpronounceable-in-American last name, check;
– Leading conservative intellectual Newt Gingrich, preparing for his accession to
the position of Speaker of the House the Presidency, calling openly for Sotomayor’s withdrawal, check;
– A bit of genteel dishonesty and race-baiting from “leading conservative scholar on race relations” Abigail Thernstrom, calling Sotomayor “a quintessential spokesman for racial spoils,” check; and finally,
– Pat Buchanan tells us we’re in Lani Guinier Land in so many words.
So: no wang chunging tonight, people! The Spin Doctors are playing tonight, and we’re alone again, naturally.
Yes, I know “Time in a Bottle” is from 1973, not 1972. That’s because its release was delayed a year by Roberta Flack, thanks to the affirmative-action programs then in place on AM radio playlists.
Monday, June 01, 2009
Nobody could have anticipated
that a mainstream-media hate campaign would lead to an act of terrorism.
Update: Oh, and Ms. Neumann?
The right-wing blogosphere is defending O’Reilly by blaming ... the Obama administration.
John Aravosis, who blogs for AmericaBlog.com, wrote that this was all the president’s fault, because the administration withdrew a report warning about abortion protest violence.
Two things. One, Aravosis isn’t actually part of the right-wing blogosphere, so, um, no. And two, might it not be a good time to go back and actually look at that report? As I recall, it sent legions of wingnuts into splittle-flecked frenzy by suggesting that “the current economic and political climate has some similiarities to the 1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence.” Maybe Aravosis has a point there somewhere, and maybe it might be worth the time to revisit the people who said the DHS report was a travesty. Like this here bloviator:
Little more than a nine-page screed against phantoms, the report purports to address potential threats from religious and racial hate groups as well as “those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.” The report also singles out for special consideration anti-abortion activists, gun owners, immigration opponents and, with allusion to Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, returning veterans.
Yes, I know that last part is high treason. But the report turned out to be kinda prescient about the first part, no?
Update update: Randall Terry, just before inviting everyone out for some hot wings and a beer:
The point that must be emphasized over, and over, and over again: pro-life leaders and the pro-life movement are not responsible for George Tiller’s death. George Tiller was a mass-murderer and, horrifically, he reaped what he sowed.
Um, quite apart from the “we are totally not to blame for the fact that Tiller had it coming” locution here, can I ask about the phrase “George Tiller’s death”? What did he “die” of? Leukemia? Heart failure? Ripe old age?
Or maybe it was murder! No, wait, the murderer was Tiller himself. Got it. Now for some crispy hot wings!