Did you think that you would live long enough to see the first African American Presidential candidate nominated from a major party?

I sure didn’t. I did think that I would live long enough to see a white woman be a Presidential candidate for a major party, but I didn’t think I would see an African American President candidate for a major party. Now there’s a good shot that I will see an African American President–that’s a major milestone.

Jonah Goldberg is the most painfully self-unaware man on the planet:

I think at some point the disconnect between the country these people are describing and the country we actually live in is going to undermine the Democrats’ credibility.

Right, Jonah. The disconnect between Democrats and America. That’s the problem.

(Via Sully)

And not “2:30-3pm.” This is the time that Bean and I agreed on. And this post was posted at that time, not posted later and back-dated in order to provide evidence in support of my position.

Just for the record.

You’ve got to love the Republican Party:

[A] leading Republican appears to have just inadvertently admitted that the GOP’s spin machine set up to counter Barack Obama during the convention is a propaganda machine spewing nothing but lies.

The GOPer in question is Colorado GOP chairman Dick Wadhams, who accidentally made the admission when describing the GOP’s war room in Denver set up to hammer Obama during convention week.

Wadhams described the GOP’s outfit thusly to the Denver Post: “Just consider this the Ministry of Truth.”

Well, yes, that is an appropriate name for it. After all, as Eric Kleefield notes:

Um, as anybody who has ever read George Orwell knows, the Ministry of Truth exists to disseminate false propaganda about how great the ruling regime is, continuously rewriting both history and the present-day facts in order to maintain total control over the population.

“The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation,” Orwell wrote. “These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy; they are deliberate exercises in doublethink.”

Which is, of course, a perfect metaphor for today’s Republican Party. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.

(Via.)

Kathryn Jean Lopez is, near as I can tell, a pure misanthrope. Just read this lovely, snide commentary about Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.:

Dem Sexy Men   [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

At a feminist event earlier today, Minnesota senator Amy Klobuchar talked about how cool it is to have men in the congressional wives’s/spouse’s club: One day, she saw her husband walking with a pink box. What was he doing? “I’m going to Jim Webb’s wife’s baby show.” Senator Klobuchar gushed to the gals gathered: “That’s the sexiest thing I’ve ever seen.”

Now, my feminist readers are reading this saying, “Um…yeah? What’s the point of this?” The point, my friends, is that KLo doesn’t think men caring about other humans is sexy. Men being nice to their fellow humans? Buying a fellow parent some clothes for their new baby? Attending a party to celebrate it? Sissy ninnies, all of them.

AKlo’s husband, John Bessler, (horrors! Different last names!) seems like a nice guy from her story, seems like a guy who cares about his fellow humans. Seems like a guy willing to fulfill the politician’s spouse role that women have been shoehorned into for  generations. Seems like a guy willing to do that to support his wife and her career.

Now, I’m not an expert in what makes men sexy, but I’d think that if I were a woman, then yes, I’d find the fact that my partner was willing to adapt to his new role with grace and dignity and no doubt sacrifice — Bessler himself is an attorney — to be sexy indeed. Frankly, as a man I like that Bessler was untroubled by the fact that he was carrying a pink box to a baby shower — things that “real men” aren’t supposed to do, or so we’re told. I think it speaks highly of him.)

KLo, women and men are attracted to each other for reasons other than pure physical lust — though that’s plenty fine in its place. We actually like each other’s personalities, like to be with each other, like to live together like the fellow humans we are. I think most humans are most attractive when they behave like themselves, when they don’t worry about what they should be doing, and instead worry about what their spirit calls them to do. Bessler seems like a good man. And if being a good person isn’t sexy, then frankly, it’s sexiness that needs to be called into question.

But of course, he doesn’t like to talk about being a POW:

John McCain, who often invokes his ordeal as a Vietnam war prisoner to show his devotion to his country as he runs for U.S. president, drew on the experience again on Monday — this time to deflect sniping over the number of houses he owns.

[...]

In an appearance on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno, McCain, 71, said his priority was to keep Americans in their homes in tough economic times.

Then he recalled his Vietnam experience.

“I spent 5 1/2 years in a prison cell without — I didn’t have a house. I didn’t have a kitchen table. I didn’t have a table. I didn’t have a chair,” he said.

“I spent those 5 1/2 years … not because I wanted to get a house when I got out.”

No, you wanted seven.

Seriously, look, John, we get that you were a POW. And that’s wonderful, blah blah blah. But here’s the thing: it’s 2008. You’ve been out of that POW camp for longer than I’ve been alive. And while I know that’s an experience that would have lasting impact, here in 2008 I’d like to live in a country that I can be proud of. And to do that, I’m going to have to have a president who doesn’t spend all his time talking about what happened to him 36 years ago.

We know what you did then, John, and frankly, I’m getting to the point that I don’t care. Not that I don’t care for you personally — although you’re frankly repeating the story so often that I’m getting desensitized — but because I don’t cast my vote based on who has the more interesting personal anecdote.

So enough with the sixties, John. That was two generations ago. I’m interested in what you’re going to do for my daughter, and her children, should she have any. I’m interested in what you’re going to do between 2009 and 2013. And yes, part of figuring that out involves looking at what you did in the 36 years since you left the POW camp. And you don’t get to waive it away just because once, a long time ago, you did something heroic.

Kathryn Jean Lopez brings the love for the dying Ted Kennedy:

It’s funny because Chappaquiddick! Yeah, sure, that was like forty years ago, but still.

Look, KLo, if you’re going to snark on Teddy, go with Dave Weigel, for the win:

They should bring Carter onstage and refuse to shake hands, for old time’s sake.

Now that’s good stuff.

My little Eli is really growing fast. He’s been making talking sounds for a long time, and he tries to imitate people who talk to him. He kept saying some word that sounded like okra, so we tried to get him to make a long O sound. Here’s a youtube video of my husband trying to get him to say Obama. He comes pretty close to saying it. Of course, according to my mommy ears he actually said Obama. He also likes to say uncle, good, and his favorite made up word is “enguh.”

Oh, that bitch Hillary Clinton, she sure burns my britches. Why, she’s actually going to have her name put in nomination at the DNC! That means clearly, she’s trying to destroy the party, unlike, say, Ted Kennedy, who did the same thing in 1980, or Jesse Jackson, who did the same thing in 1984 and 1988, or Jerry Brown, who got votes in 1992, or…well, anyhow, it’s evil when Hillary does it. And we all know her goal is to destroy the party from within, right?

Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama are working on a deal to give her some votes in the roll call for the Democratic presidential nomination, but quickly end the divided balloting in unanimous consent for Obama.

Democratic officials involved in the negotiations said Monday the idea is that at the start of the state-by-state vote for the presidential nomination Wednesday night, delegates would cast their votes for Clinton or Obama.

But the voting would be cut off after a couple of states, the officials said, perhaps ending with New York, when Clinton herself would call for unanimous backing for Obama from the convention floor. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity while the deal was being finalized.

Wow. She really is Lady Macbeth, isn’t she? Meanwhile, I’m sure she and John McCain are probably behind that ridiculous new McCain ad where he attacks Obama for passing over her for the vice presidency, right?

“I just want to make it absolutely clear — we cannot afford four more years of President Bush’s failed policies,” she said. “I am looking forward to being at the White House when President Obama signs quality, affordable health care for every American.”

[...]

Clinton mocked a Republican advertisement using some of her criticisms of Obama during the nominating duel.

“I am Hillary Clinton and I do not approve that message,” she said, earning a standing ovation from a New York crowd waving blue signs saying “Hillary Made History.”

Why, it’s almost as if she isn’t trying to sabotage the Obama campaign. But I’m sure she is. Everyone knows Hillary is pure evil, and a little thing like facts will never get in the way of that.

Today’s Monday, August 28, the first day of the Democratic National Convention. But just a week from today, the other party descends on St. Paul for the Republican National Convention. As a service to my non-Minnesotan friends, I’m offering up this unofficial guide to the RNC and the Twin Cities. Enjoy!

I was moved to write this guide because…well, because you deserve the truth about the Twin Cities, the upcoming Republican National Convention, and the fact that we’re not your real parents.¹

If you are reading this, you’re going to be attending the 2008 RNC. Maybe you’re going to do so as a delegate, one of those oh-so-lucky folks who get to pick a surly, bitter man to be your standard-bearer. Not since Bob Dole in 1996 have you had such a mix of anger and resentment.

Or perhaps you’re a protester, coming into the Twin Cities to declare to everyone, for all time, that you are certainly not going to be voting for George W. Bush in November, no sir!

Or maybe you’re a t-shirt vendor, police officer, pickpocket, or prostitute, coming into town to make a fast buck on McCain/Giuliani t-shirts, people protesting McCain or, for some reason, Giuliani, the contents of the wallets of John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, or the “Full McCain/Giuliani,” (which is going to cost you another hundred, honey). Truly, the RNC should be a draw for capitalists like yourselves, and if you feel guilty, remember, you could work for Exxon.

Finally, you could be a Republican elected official in a closely-fought race. Just kidding; I know you won’t be within 1000 miles of here.

At any rate, whether you’re a plutocrat, a protester, a prostitute, or all of the above, the 2008 RNC is the most fun that you can have this side of the electric chair – if you know how to work it. And that’s where this guide comes in.

This guide will give you – yes, you – the straight dope on Minneapolis-St. Paul. Where to have fun, where to hang out, what bridges are due to collapse during your time in town, you know, the usual. On behalf of all Minnesotans, we are obliged under the Anderson Act of 1977 to welcome you to our state, and assure you that really, we want you to be here, and as long as you’re here, why don’t you have some hot dish?

Part One

An Introduction to Minneapolis St. Paul

So you’re very excited, I’m sure, to be coming to Minneapolis for the RNC. Minneapolis is, of course, a fine city, home to the Vikings, Twins, and Timberwolves, as well as the Walker Art Center and the internationally renowned Guthrie Theatre. It’s a center of economics and industry, whose name literally means “water city.”

Well too bad, binky, because the RNC isn’t going to be held in Minneapolis. It’s going to be held in St. Paul. Get it straight, or you’re really going to make the East Siders feel bad.

Seriously, how many of you have an older sibling? I don’t, but I can pretend I do to give you this analogy: don’t you just hate their freakin’ guts? Well, that’s how St. Paul feels about Minneapolis, except for the fact that Minneapolis is a little bit younger than St. Paul, but whatever. Point is, the good citizens of St. Paul feel a bit slighted every time someone like Katie Couric or Michele Bachmann or Gov. Tim Pawlenty goes on television to declare that everyone should come to Minneapolis for the convention.² Given that Minneapolis always seems to get all the publicity, all the love and attention, its pictures put up on the state refrigerator – well, it stings.

So remember, as you’re going to the Xcel Energy Center, home of the Minnesota Wild, that you’re not in Minneapolis. You’re in St. Paul. And so if you see a local, make sure you complement them on the beauty of St. Paul. “Boy, St. Paul sure is lovely,” you’ll say, and the locals will smile broadly, and say, “Well, you know, yeah, I suppose it’s a nice enough town.” Which is practically a touchdown dance around these parts.

Of course, if you’re attending an event in Minneapolis, feel free to ignore all of this; Minneapolitans often forget St. Paul exists, and will look at you strangely if you bring the city up.

A Brief Note on Fargo

The movie Fargo was filmed on location in Minneapolis and St. Paul, and we’re all quite proud of it, especially the Coen Brothers, who are, of course, One of Us.³

But, well, while the Coens engaged in a little bit of joshing at the expense of their fellow Minnesotans, let me just say that the people of this state are really not very much like that.⁴

Oh, we’ve got all that can-do, Marge Gunderson spirit – heck, we all like Marge’s character just fine. But the William H. Macy character is all wrong. I mean, everyone knows that Minnesotans are just friendly and helpful; if he got in a jam, he just should have said something, that’s only right. And frankly, let me remind you that Interstate 94 does not go through Brainerd; I don’t know what those fellas were doing there, but it certainly didn’t make much sense, unless they wanted to head to the Mille Lacs Casino, and…wait, when was that movie supposed to be set, Sven? Did they have the casinos back then, or just the bingo halls? Well, okay, so they wouldn’t have gone to the casino; maybe they were gonna go to a fish house instead.

Anyhow, point is that Minnesota is nothing like what you see portrayed in the movies. We’re exciting, hip, with-it people, and just because we mix in a bit of lutefisk⁵ now and then…well, that’s just our way of living dangerously.

Is Minnesota Nothing but Bland Scandinavians?

No, there are also bland Germans here. And bland Latinos, bland Somalis, bland African-Americans, bland Hmong…pretty much any bland ethnic, religious, or socioeconomic group you can imagine.

Why are we so bland? You’ve got me. Maybe it’s because we get all our entertainment putting professional wrestlers in charge of the state now and then, just to see what happens. That’ll keep you on your toes. Or maybe it’s just that in the winter, we’re too busy trying not to freeze to death to develop anything resembling a crazy, partylike atmosphere.⁶ Or maybe the blandness is in the air. Perhaps the native Lakota and Ojibwa spiked the water with blanding chemicals when white settlers seized the land from them, knowing they were consigning their children to blandness, but accepting the collateral damage in order to get their just revenge. Frankly, it’s not a big deal if they did.

The Jewel of the Upper Midwest

At any rate, let’s just put our cards on the table: we’re no Indiana when it comes to excitement. But we’re a darn sight better than the NoDakers and the SoDakers, and unlike Iowa, we can read. (Which isn’t really Iowa’s fault; the University of Iowa had to close after they lost their book, and it’s been tough sledding for them.) Our only real regional competition is Wisconsin, and they’re too drunk to care.⁷

That’s why Minnesota is known as the Jewel of the Upper Midwest, at least among Minnesotans. And why you’ll have a mildly interesting time when you come to visit – unless you visit the Larry Craig Memorial Stall. But that’s a post for another day.

1. You were actually left on our doorstep by a crazed drifter, who told us only that you were the one who would open the seventh seal on the seventh day in the seventh year. Seemed odd to us too, now that you mention it. (back)
2. All true. (back)
3. In Minnesota parlance, anyone tangentially related to the state who’s ever done anything impressive. See also Dylan, Bob; Madden, John; Fitzgerald, F. Scott; et. al. Opposite of Johnny-Come-Lately, which is any non-famous person living in the state who was not born here, no matter how long ago they moved here. (back)
4. Actually, we totally are, at least the white, Scandinavian-influenced folk who tend to hold a lot of influence around here. Under the Fargo Defamation Act of 1999, I’m supposed to tell you all the stuff above, about how we’re all enlightened and urbane, but we’re not. Frankly, we’ve got a serious sense of inadequacy (hey, you grow up a few hundred miles from Chicago, see how you feel. Even if you felt okay about it, Chicago won’t let it go). Another state would have seen the Coen’s masterpiece as a gentle love-letter to their home, but we don’t want anyone to think we talk like that, with the yah-sures and so forth. And I suppose that’s true; that’s really just the outstaters. The accent’s much more subtle in the Cities. And our senate candidates on both sides of the aisle have managed to avoid it altogether.

   At any rate, the main point here is to be aware that a lot of Minnesotans are sensitive about Fargo. I’m not, but what do I know? I’m a Johnny-Come-Lately, my parents moved me here when I was five. I’m practically an immigrant. (back)

5. Don’t ask. You don’t want to know. (back)
6. Fast fact: 63% of Minnesotans think global warming’s a good thing for us, and another 30% are just too polite to say so. (back)
7. Ask any Wisconsinite, they’ll tell you it’s true. (back)

Image description: a girl between 8 and 10 years old holds a rose and an Israeli flag. She’s wearing a backpack and looking at the camera without smiling. A boy is visible behind her. Photo credit: Brian Hendler.

This picture was featured on last week’s photo roundup on JTA. The girl is a Georgian refugee whose family has chosen to immigrate to Israel to escape the fighting. The image certainly says a lot about the girl’s current state, but I think it says a lot about Israel, too.

A couple of disclaimers:

1. Obviously I’m not a mind-reader, so don’t interpret this as my attempt to pick this particular girl’s brain. My reading of the photo is on a purely symbolic level.

2. As a Diaspora Jew, I know that I don’t have insider knowledge of life in contemporary Israel (although many native-born Israelis seem to feel they have insider knowledge of life in the contemporary Diaspora).

What’s interesting about the photo is that the girl has apparently been given a flower and an Israeli flag upon her arrival at Ben Gurion. Only the top of the flag is visible, but I recognize it as the same type I was given at the Birthright Mega-Event a few years ago. For those of you not familiar with what goes on during a Birthright trip, the Mega-Event is the culmination of a tour around the country for Jews ages 18-26. The evening is crammed with the gaudiest spectacles you can imagine - laser shows, dance troupes, pop stars, visiting heads of state, a post-show rave - and little plastic Israeli flags are made available to the thousands of audience members. The official purpose of the flags, I suppose, is to give Birthrighters a memento of their trip. The real purpose becomes clear, though, whenever Israel is mentioned during the show. The stands appear to quiver as everyone cheers and waves their flag. Anyone not waving one can’t help but feel almost seditious.

The symbolism of a national flag can’t be underestimated. It’s what you hold up to support your government’s actions, to demonstrate solidarity with the other inhabitants of your country (the ones that look and sound like you, at least), to show support for your country when it’s challenged or threatened by another country, or to display your love of the ideals of your country. You wave it at national celebrations or in times of collective crisis. You lower it when in mourning for someone who supported it. You use it to contrast your country with others, to show what you are by highlighting what you’re not.

The flag doesn’t have to be about that, of course, as I’ve discussed before. But those are the most commonly accepted connotations. It’s a symbol of pride in and loyalty to a particular nation - and a way of establishing a very clear-cut identity.

So this new Israeli has just arrived from a war-torn region. She’s lost her home, most of her belongings, and quite possibly close friends and family members. She looks tired and distracted. She’s holding the flag she’s been given, but she’s not smiling.

What are a Jew’s motives for moving to Israel? What are Israel’s motives for encouraging refugees to immigrate?

The easiest answers are the cynical ones. Why not move to Israel when your home has been destroyed? Why not exploit a humanitarian crisis to recruit more citizens, when part of your government’s strategy is to entrench itself in someone else’s territory through illegal settlements and state-sanctioned violence? When your national identity is based, in part, on being a safe haven for a persecuted people - which ties a little too nicely into justifying the persecution of the people who put down roots during the 2,000 years you were gone?

And there’s truth in those answers. But there’s truth in the stickier answers, too. A few Georgians were quoted as saying that they’d already been considering moving to Israel; the war was just the catalyst. It’s a joke to claim that anti-Semitism abruptly vanished in the latter half of the 20th century. Recently I was helping a student brainstorm essay ideas, and she mentioned her youth group’s trip to Poland - where, upon spotting the boys’ yarmulkes, people felt free to shout “Heil Hitler” at them. The Lithuanian government regularly engages in various anti-Semitic activities, and the Jewish school in Paris where I picked up my charges as an au pair had to be protected by a fifteen-foot-high wall and police officers. Jews are routinely harassed, attacked, and killed - not for opposing Palestinian rights (in fact, many are attacked while participating at progressive rallies), but for having the gall to be Jewish. To say that Jews have no reason to want a country of our own - not to criticize the location of that country or the ethnic cleansing that has been occurring since its inception, but to claim that we were fine as we were - is a pretty profound act of hatred.

But maybe anti-Semitism didn’t play a role in those refugees’ deliberations. Georgia isn’t known for having a particularly high level of anti-Jewish sentiment. Even without hostility, though, there’s power in wanting to be around other people like you.

And despite (because of) the corruption, hawkishness, and racism riddling their government, Israelis do sincerely believe that it’s better to be a Jew in Israel than a Jew in the Diaspora. According to that logic, one’s arrival in Israel is a cause for celebration, even if the circumstances are tragic.

Which brings us back to the photo. I’m struck most by the contrast between the object and the face - the joyful, congratulatory gesture of a flag coupled with the fear and uncertainty of a refugee; the simplicity of nationalism at odds with the complexity of survival. Is the flag a distraction? An insult? Maybe she was smiling a moment before. As always, the issue of Palestine looms around the edges. Why does this child deserve a haven and a home more than a Palestinian does? Why can’t they both have it? To say that it has to be one or the other is unacceptable.

I don’t know how to accomplish this - not in this all-or-nothing climate. It saddens me that to acknowledge the humanity of both Jews and Arabs is, on either end of the political spectrum, an act of radicalism.

To the girl - if you or your family is reading this, I hope I didn’t use your image unfairly. I wish you the best of luck in your new home.

(Cross-posted at Modern Mitzvot)

Ah, Mike Adams. You remember Mike Adams; he’s the UNC-Wilmington professor who singlehandedly devalues my friend’s brother’s college degree, the idiot who once argued that we should end abortion so women will stop having sex.Well, Mike Adams is back. Truthfully, he never went away, but he writes at Townhall, so his insanity is often obscured by all the other insanity over there. Today, Dr. Mike explains what we men need to do to be Real Men, not crappy, non-Mikelike men. It starts off almost, almost sane. But it goes wrong, quickly. And soon, it is amazingly, horribly wrong. But like a car wreck, you can’t turn away. And the ending gives the lie to any idea that Dr. Mike is worried about men at all.

A divorced friend of mine was complaining to me recently about the pool of women available to him here in the coastal Carolina region. His specific complaint was that too many (I think he said “all”) of the women were carrying too much baggage to have a successful relationship.

Here’s a friendly tip to all people who find “all” women/men/eunuchs/whatever to be carrying too much baggage/too angry/too distant/too revulsed to date. If everybody you meet is horribly wrong for you, then you need to take a look and see what the constant in those releationships is. I’ll give you a hint: it’s you.

I’m so tired of hearing “men” make this complaint that I’ve made it the subject of today’s column.

Hark! What’s this? Is Mike Adams — the Mike Adams who once compared feminists to Charles Manson — could he be about to defend women?

The thesis of my rebuttal is really simple: It is not entirely fair and accurate to say that most adult women are carrying a lot of “baggage” or have a lot of “issues.” (Remember when people used to have problems, not issues?). It is much more accurate to say that most adult women are profoundly wounded and scarred by the things that “men” have done to them when they were not really acting like men.

Well, sort of; he’s going to blame all women’s problems on men’s actions. And what actions are these? Well, let’s find out, shall we?

Real Men Do Not Go To Topless Bars. I wrote about this topic two years ago in a column called “I Had a Dream.” But, it is worth repeating that topless bars are little more than fronts for organized crime. This includes the punks who operate the strip club near UNC-Wilmington. These people take women with low self-esteem – often victims of sexual abuse – and get them hooked on cocaine that is sold in their club (again: an organized crime front). To the extent that “men” frequent these places, they fund the destruction of the life of someone’s daughter. This is a disgrace and no such “man” can even remotely be characterized as a Christian.

The topless bar was no place for a Christian, and I did not long remain one.

I kid, of course; I’m not a big fan of strip clubs. Indeed, that makes it sound like I’ve spent enough time in strip clubs to decide whether I’m a fan or not, but I haven’t — I’ve been to a grand total of zero strip clubs in my life, and am not in a hurry to change the number. The closest I’ve come is when some friends and I went to see “Crazy Girls” in Las Vegas — a decision we regretted before the show was over.

I’m kinda, sorta with Dr. Mike on this one. I don’t go to strip clubs for the reason he says — I don’t like contributing to enterprises that degrade and demean women. That said, if there was a hypothetical strip club where the entertainers were truly choosing to be there, I’d have no problem with it.

Of course, my decision to not go to strip clubs is based more on my belief that women are human beings than that women are pure vessels of virginity. This may not seem like a major distinction now, but it will be.

Real Men Do Not View Pornography. I recently asked an Obama supporter whether he ever viewed pornography on the internet. He said he did “occasionally.” I asked whether he would ever want his daughter to star in a porn flick. He said “never.” When I reminded him that the porn star has parents, too, he vowed to reconsider his continued viewing of internet pornography.

Something that “men” who view pornography do not realize is that it trains the mind to be sexually stimulated by seeing images of many different people nude and engaged in certain acts. Eventually, the viewer becomes unable to be stimulated by just one person. Thus, a “man” who views pornography is much more likely to hurt his wife by engaging in adultery. And when he’s caught, he’s much more likely to hurt his children with a painful divorce. Those who believe that porn affects only the viewer are simply uneducated, dishonest, or both. Where there is pornography, there is also co-lateral damage.

I love this one; of course an Obama supporter views pornography, the bastard. He probably masturbates too!

Look, as with the strip clubs, my view on pornography is centered around the fact that the porn industry is not pro-woman in any sense of the word. I’m a sentimental guy; I tend to think that sex should be fun for all participants, be it the man, the woman, the other man, or the other woman. I don’t get off on degradation. And so mainstream porn hasn’t ever held much allure to me, because, frankly, much of mainstream porn is about degradation.

That said, let’s draw a bright, shiny line here, because Dr. Mike seems to be confused about something: pornography does not prime people to be attracted to other people. Pornography is a function of people being attracted to other people. Lots of other people. If you’re a het guy or a lesbian girl, those people are going to be primarily women; if you’re a het girl or a gay guy, those people are going to be primarily men. If you’re bisexual, it’ll be everyone.

Not looking at pornography does not keep a man or woman from noticing an attractive woman or man who is not their spouse. Nothing will keep a sexually mature person from noticing attractive potential sexual partners. That’s not an excuse to cheat; if you’re in a committed, monogamous relationship, you don’t cheat because you don’t want to cheat, because you’ve accepted the trade-off of being with one person who you love deeply, rather than having many different partners with whom you have no strong connection. But that doesn’t mean you don’t notice people, or even fantasize about people from time to time. That’s not evil; that’s human.

Dr. Mike doesn’t understand humans. As you’ll see:

Real Men Do Not Have Sex With Women They Do Not Intend To Marry. I once read a survey indicating that the number of sex partners a woman has in a lifetime is only a fraction of the number of sex partners a man has in a lifetime. This can be explained by two factors: 1) men lie in an upward direction when asked how many people they’ve slept with and, 2) women lie in a downward direction when asked how many people they’ve slept with.

This becomes a problem later on in marriage when a woman is unable to forgive herself for having a lot of sex partners. This guilt is biologically, and not culturally, induced. And once a woman has lied about her past to a prospective husband, she cannot communicate with him about her guilt. The couple begins to have problems whose true origins are never addressed.

The only solution to this problem is for men to stop having sex with women they do not intend to marry. Men have it within their power to stop contaminating the future-wife pool. A little self-control can do a lot to strengthen a dying institution.

And here’s where things start to go very wrong indeed. First off, I love that Dr. Mike “read a study.” Well! That’s mighty specific there! I read a study that says Dr. Mike Adams is a huge douchebag. This can be explained by his douchebagginess. Second, I love that the concern is “contaminating the future-wife pool,” not, you know, being kind and decent to a fellow human being.

At any rate, yes, men do tend to brag about their number, while women tend to downplay theirs. Why? Well, Dr. Mike asserts that this is “biologically, and not culturally, induced.” His proof of this is (mumble mumble mumble). But of course, arguing that women have no cultural pressure to minimize the number of sex partners they have is complete and utter bullshit. When police officers are publicly slut-shaming high school girls over their MySpace pages, it’s pretty clear that we as a culture are sending really, really, really strong messages that a girl who likes it is a slut. Meanwhile, a boy who likes it is a stud. Golly, I just don’t know why it is that women then feel guilty if they’ve had sex with eight partners while their husbands have only had sex with four. I don’t know where the pressure for women to lie comes from. Must be biological, probably something hard-wired in the Madeitupital Lobe, where the Slutdometer is.

You know what would ease a woman’s guilt about having a lot of sex partners before marriage? We as a society could stop worrying about how many sex partners women have. If you’re dating a woman who’s purely virginal or had 150 partners, what do you care, if you’re the current one? Yes, it’s okay to care if suddenly you find you’re not the most recent one, at least if you’re in a monogamous relationship. But that’s true no matter what your girlfriend’s number is, or yours is.

Seriously, what do you care who she dated before she was with you? What should she care who you dated before you were with her? None of the parts wear out, folks. Indeed, evolution has made them extremely resilient.

And of course, there are boys and girls out there who are quite happy having sex with people they don’t intend to marry. There are boys and girls who settle down without guilt — or indeed, who never choose to settle down. But they never enter Dr. Mike’s brain.

And finally, the deep guilt the hypothetical woman felt about deceit might be valid — deceit, after all, is a cancer that destroys relationships. But that deceit need never have happened if she and her partner felt comfortable enough with themselves to accept each other as they are — and present themselves as they are. I’d much rather be in a relationship with a woman who had dozens of partners and was generally sanguine about it than a relationship with a woman just out of a divorce with the only man she’d ever been with — because the number isn’t important. And my number — which is low — isn’t important either, and doesn’t make me less or more of a real man. And only an idiot thinks otherwise.

Now, we’re about halfway through, and you may have noticed something: all of Dr. Mike’s arguments about being a “Real Man” are really about women. None of this is about telling the truth because it’s the right thing to do, or being careful about getting involved in relationships because they can scar your heart, and cause you to have trouble relating to others. No, Dr. Mike is all about telling men how they need to ignore their sex drive entirely and this will somehow make women happy.

It’s going to get worse, though.

Real Men Do Not Engage In Post-Marital Sex. Saying “I used to be married” is a pretty lame excuse for engaging in post-marital sex. And, if you have children, especially girls, there’s a really good reason to avoid it. Put simply, if you have young girls and you start having sex after marriage your girls will find out about it from your ex-wife. Of course, your ex-wife will have learned about it from your mutual friends.

There’s a good chance that your young daughters will still look up to you even after a nasty divorce. They may want to marry someone with many of your qualities. Don’t send the message that they need to sleep with such a man in order to get his attention.

Um…Dr. Mike? My sex life is none of my daughter’s business, and I’m not going to involve her in it. One can be discreet about having sex, after all, and frankly, I don’t want my daughter to have to think about my sex life ever.

But adults have sex. If my ex-wife ever starts dating, she and her boyfriend will at some point have sex. If I ever start dating, my girlfriend and I will at some point have sex. When my daughter’s an adult and dating, at some point she and her partner will have sex. Having sex with your partner is a practice that predates humans by hundreds of millions (if not billions) of years.  It’s pretty damn natural, and it’s something most humans really, really enjoy. Not all humans — some don’t care much for sex, and that’s fine for them. But most of us enjoy it quite a bit, and given the opportunity, most of us will engage in it.

And you know what? That’s okay. I’m okay with the idea that my daughter will some day have sex, even (gasp!) outside the bonds of holy matrimony, even for reasons other than procreation.

Sex is not evil. Running your children through a whipsaw series of paramours may be, but that’s true whether you’re all canoodling or simply coming over for dinner and nodding chastely across the table. It is emotional connections that play havoc with children and adults alike.

Finally, Dr. Mike brings home the stupid:

Real Men Never Relinquish the Role of Spiritual Head of the Household. God did not give the Ten Commandments to a woman. Nor did He send his only begotten daughter to save womankind. If your potential spouse has trouble understanding this, you need to reconsider your relationship. And once your children are grown, your leadership obligation continues. If your child has strayed spiritually – whether into paganism or atheism - it may or may not be the result of poor modeling on your behalf. Regardless, men have an obligation to fight for their children’s spiritual redemption. A man’s willingness to do so determines whether he leaves behind a legacy that glorifies God or one that glorifies Satan.

And here we go. Women are inferior — God didn’t choose them to give his commandments to. Men are in charge of their families. Paganism and atheism are evil. Not forcing your children into Christianity is leaving a legacy of evil. And make no mistake — your children are yours, not your wife’s, not themselves — they are your possessions, reflections of you. And what you do with them determines your legacy, not what you do yourself.

In short, real men are the boss. They stay the boss, even after divorce. They are the boss of their children, forever. And any woman who doesn’t accept that isn’t someone you should be dealing with. Only if you are an asshole willing to tell your wife and children what to believe and demand they believe it — fight for it, fight on behalf of Jesus against Satan — only then can you be a real man.

Dr. Mike leaves us with this teaser:

In a future installment, I will deal with the issue of “real women.” That installment will talk about the things women are doing to hurt other women. “Real Women” will include, among other things, a comprehensive discussion of fake boobies, why I don’t like them, and how they contribute to global warming.

Well, Dr. Mike certainly has his finger, ahem, on the pulse of what ails women. Given what an awesome job he did at explaining to me how I can never be a real man unless I force my daughter to choose Jesus no matter what my ex or my daughter thinks, I can’t wait to see what he thinks real women are supposed to be like.

What the heck, let’s have a Biden thread.

Kathy at The G Spot, although pointing out Biden’s positives — such as VAWA — has some reasons progressives should be unhappy:

Biden’s record on choice is weak. He’s nominally pro-choice, but he supported the ban on so-called “partial birth” abortions, opposes public funding for abortion, and received a none-too-encouraging rating of 60% from NARAL last year. But what concerns me even more are his votes in favor of limiting the estate tax and “reforming” bankruptcy law. The bankruptcy bill, in particular, was an abomination, and his vote in favor of it was unconscionable. That bill will ruin peoples’ lives — in fact, I’m sure it has already. I’ve heard the rationale that since Biden is from Delaware, he’s “the senator from MBNA” by default, but I don’t buy that excuse. Does anyone really think Biden, who’s held his senate seat for longer than most Americans have been alive, would have suddenly become politically vulnerable if he’d voted differently? I doubt it. It’s not like opposing the bill would have been unpopular with the voters.

Then there’s a whole other issue — call it, the asshole factor. Biden is a hothead and a blowhard, and he’s well-known for his habit of making gaffes and unfortunate remarks. Here are some of his greatest hits:

(You’ll have to click through to Kathy’s to read the greatest hits!)

Meanwhile Ezra argues that the choice of Biden should please progressives:

For progressives, this is encouraging pick. More encouraging than Bayh, or Kaine, or even, in a way, Sebelius. More encouraging than picks who might have been more progressive, but less pugnacious. Elevating Biden suggests that the Obama campaign has decided to have an argument. Not try to win on momentum and inspiration and GOTV, but to engage, and win, an argument about which set of ideas is better for the future of the country. And in Biden, they’ve engaged at the point of greatest vulnerability and opportunity for Democrats: National security.

A political history of the past few years in Democratic politics is a history of the party’s failed attempts to dance away from foreign policy discussions. There was the Thomas Frank school of thought: Pivot from “national security to economic insecurity.” There was the George Lakoff approach: Reframe the language. There was the Kerry approach: “How can they be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them in Boise?” But even if these approaches had succeeded — they didn’t — they would still have bespoke long-term weakness in the Democratic Party: A fundamental inability to win arguments about American foreign policy.

A Democrat has not been elected during wartime in over 50 years. A healthy party cannot only prosper when the world is at peace and the waters are quiet. But seven years of Republican incompetence and failure have generated tremendous mistrust in the conservative foreign policy approach. Iraq was a historic blunder, Osama bin Laden is loose, America’s international standing is dismal. There’s an opening for Democrats to press the advantage, argue that they, in fact, have the better record, and the sounder ideas, on national security. But they have to actually engage the argument. They can’t hope that events will do the work for them. Picking Biden, the Obama campaign signaled that this is a project they want to take on, and a project they realize will have to be engaged affirmatively and aggressively.

I think both Kathy and Ezra make good cases, and in my usual wishy-washy fashion I agree with them both. But it’s D-Day who wrote something that had me screaming “yes! SO true!” at my computer monitor:¹

Actually, who betrayed the public is you, the media, again, because you just couldn’t stand not being insiders for ten minutes and waiting out the pick and maybe using those resources of staking out potential candidates’ homes and working the phones on, I don’t know, illegal wars and torture. The press only breaks out their investigative skills every four years so they can scoop their competition by 20 seconds. Would it have killed them to embargo the story and let the campaign play it out the way they wanted? Would it have mattered to anyone?

This secret was so tantalizing to them, making it necessary to marshal the full resources of the American media, while eight years of secret government and secret law received no such attention. The discovery of the pick was an end in itself, justifying their clubby, insider self-images as the coolest kids in the room. And then, after they’ve undermined the rollout, they blame the candidate.

Curtsy: Auguste. (And see here for more well-earned press-bashing.)

1. Well, not really. But somewhere inside, I screamed it. (back)

Obama, during a soon-to-be-forgotten controversy, said that Republicans take pride in being ignorant.

Here’s a relatively minor example that illustrates the point: During the saddleback forum (EconomistMom posted the relevant part of the transcript), McCain said:

My friends, we spent $3 million of your money to study the DNA of bears in Montana. Now I don’t know if that was a paternity issue or a criminal issue…

(LAUGHTER)

… but the point is, it was $3 million of your money. It was your money. And, you know, we laugh about it, but we cry - and we should cry because the Congress is supposed to be careful stewards of your tax dollars.

This is a argument McCain has reused year after year — it’s part of his stump speech.

So what is McCain talking about? The funding (which was actually $5 million, spread out over several years) was for a project that measures the population of grizzly bears by conducting DNA tests on grizzly hair.

“The main question we’re trying to answer is how many grizzly bears are now in the NCDE,” says Kate Kendall, who coordinates the Northern Divide Grizzly Bear Project. A U.S. Geological Service research biologist stationed at Glacier National Park, Kendall explains that wildlife managers can’t effectively protect, control, restore, or otherwise manage grizzly bears or other wildlife population unless they first know how many animals exist and whether the population is increasing or decreasing. [...]

An accurate number of NCDE grizzlies has eluded biologists for decades. Comprising Glacier National Park and the Bob Marshall, Scapegoat, Great Bear, and Mission Mountains wildernesses, the ecosystem is one of the wildest and most inaccessible in the contiguous United States. Moreover, grizzly bears are among the most difficult animals to count. For decades, biologists thought a reliable population estimate of these secretive bears in the NCDE would be impossible to obtain.

Then came DNA hair follicle sampling. By snagging the hair of bears visiting lure stations or using rub trees, researchers can now identify individual animals and accurately estimate population size with the same DNA technology police use to solve crimes.

“In addition to being quick and relatively inexpensive, one major advantage of DNA analysis is that we don’t have to trap, tranquilize, collar, and otherwise handle bears,” says Kendall. “In fact, there’s really no interaction between bears and people.”

The project involves nearly 5,000 stations, some of them as much as 50 miles from the nearest road. Each station needs to be set up by trained technicians (among other things, you need someone who won’t get in trouble with bears despite wandering around in the woods with big bottles of extremely effective bear bait — the project has so far had nearly 100 bear sightings but zero bear-related injuries). The bear fur samples also need to be collected and the stations sterilized and reset for the next bear, and eventually dismantled. Each sample needs to be tracked (they use bar codes), packed, shipped, identified by DNA, and then the data needs to be interpreted.

First of all, let me just say: Damn, that’s really cool.

It’s a clever and innovative solution to a measurement problem that scientists recently thought impossible to solve. And without it, we can’t be certain if the grizzly bear population is going up or going down — which is important, because federal law requires the government to protect endangered species, and that can’t be done without good data.

Here’s some questions I’d like to see McCain asked:

1) On dozens of occasions, including just last week, you’ve cited the Northern Divide Grizzly Bear Project as a prime example of wasteful government spending. Can you tell us what the Northern Divide Grizzly Bear Project’s purpose is?

2) Are you opposed to tracking the population of grizzly bears to make sure they don’t go extinct? Are you opposed to protecting endangered species?

3) If you’re not opposed to tracking the population of grizzly bears, then what less expensive but equally effective means do you propose?

4) Why did you vote for a program that you’ve cited dozens of times as an example of useless government pork?

It’s possible Senator McCain voted for the program because he knows it’s a good program and a responsible use of taxpayer money. But Candidate McCain is so lacking substance — and so certain that the way into Republican hearts is through aggressive ignorance and mockery of good science — that he might discredit a program he knows is valuable in order to advance his anti-government, anti-science campaign. What matters to an empty shirt like McCain isn’t substance, and certainly not good science; the only thing that matters is votes.

Alternatively, McCain is such an ignoramus that he thinks the Northern Divide Grizzly Bear Project really is a bad idea. Finally, it’s possible that he’s been speaking against it for years, on dozens of occasions, without even knowing what the project does.

(See also: Scientific American, The New York Times.)

Hmm:

Via Marc Ambinder.

UPDATE: AP, Fox, MSNBC say it will be Biden. Let the bouquets and brickbats fly!

Dave “Mudcat” Saunders styles himself as the voice of the Southern Democrat, who have been abandoned by the arugula-chomping limousine liberal set, who do nothing but stereotype all the live-long day. Of course, that Saunders is…uh…stereotyping when he says this goes unmentioned, because we all know how those liberals aren’t “real” Americans.

Anyhow, Oliver Willis has a good catch about a new profile of Mudcat. Really, it’s not so much Mudcat’s regurgitated pablum, which is in full effect, but quite simply, this picture:

That’s Mudcat’s bed. Nice, colorful comforter-slash-symbol of slavery and the greatest treason ever perpetrated against the United States of America.

The Confederate Flag is a 20th century combination of the Confederate Navy Jack and the Confederate Battle Flag. Both were flown in battle by the Confederacy during their traitorous attempt to secede from the Union, so they could continue to hold slaves. The flag itself was revived in support of the right of the South to continue with Jim Crow, and support the American Apartheid system that kept African Americans mired in poverty and penury. Far from being a neutral symbol of Southern pride, it is a racist symbol, pure and simple, a symbol of white pride.

That Saunders tucks himself in at night under a racist symbol is, to put it mildly, horrific. He shouldn’t be involved in American politics, and he damn sure shouldn’t be allowed to be a voice in the Democratic Party, any more than a man who tucked himself in under a Nazi flag or a Ku Klux Klan flag. And quite frankly, if Mudcat doesn’t want himself and his ilk to be viewed as “a bunch of hillbilly heathens who go out and burn crosses and do crazy bullshit,” he might not want to be a hillbilly heathen who goes to sleep under a rebel flag.

Societal change doesn’t happen overnight, and it doesn’t happen by fiat; it takes thousands and thousands of individual changes to change society. And so mark this up as a small but meaningful milestone on the road to marriage equality:

It looks like Hallmark is targeting a new consumer.

While the language doesn’t directly refer to marriage (considering the fact that two states in this country actually recognize gay marriage), they were created shortly after California legalized. The cards have mushy language that could apply to marriage or civil unions like, “Two hearts. One promise.”

Yes, it’s a small thing. But it’s an important thing. As Vanessa says, this is Hallmark, the über-card maker, the ones who invented wrapping paper. Obviously, they’re looking to profit off of the burgeoning number of same-sex couples who are now legally able to get married — or soon will be. But we’re a capitalist country, that’s not surprising or even bad. No, the hopeful sign here is that Hallmark views this as just another market, another revenue stream — just a normal, average, everyday thing, that someone shopping at Target might want to pick up on a Tuesday afternoon.

It’s a small thing, nothing grand. But it’s important. Because little by little, no matter the outcry from the right, more and more people are seeing marriage equality as…well, just a normal, average, everyday thing. Not scary. Not destructive. Just two people falling in love and deciding to cast in their fortunes together. Pretty normal, pretty boring — and pretty cool.