…when joined by Wikipedia, reddit, Google, and countless other sites….

Courtesy of ProPublica.com

Well, it's Primary Day in New Hampshire,
And the voters must finally decide.
In the Countertop State, it's for damned sure,
That no candidate gets a free ride.

Having put paid, Mitt Romney is cruising
By a margin of many a digit.
He likes firing his engine half-throttle,
While conservatives waver and fidget.

Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Huntsman,
To put brakes on Mitt's juggernaut and park it,
Have tried all the political stunts. Man
Bites dog! They disdain the free market!

Poor Rick Perry had fire in the belly,
But in truth he's at home on the range.
Since his race is all "Oops!" and "Whoa, Nelly!"
His insistence on bucking seems strange.

By both flanks of the centrist investor
Drives a dark horse who might take it all,
But would settle for place, show, or jester:
It's irascible Ludwig von Paul.

So Republicans, Democrats, and even
Independents will vote all day long
To anoint a Republican leader.
What could possibly go wrong?

In the gossip-driven feeding frenzy that keeps alive the tawdry tale of rising and declining wannabe John Edwards (now with video), the New York Daily News wins quip of the day :

Hunter had been hired by the Edwards campaign to videotape the candidate’s movements, but this one is said to have shown him taking positions that weren’t on his official platform.

The commodification of sexual scandal is nothing new, of course, and in times like these more than ever the media are motivated to regard as "news" whatever will maximize sales.  Thus, there's a regrettable tendency to spew rather than eschew.

What's cheapened in yellowing press, beyond the players' tattered reputations, is a factor arguably worth conserving: the vitality of sexual allusion as a literary device.

For some of their puissance, these worthy tropes depend on indirection– a wink, a nod, a knowing glance.  But in a cultural milieu where everyone seems to say entirely too much altogether, and where even the king is in the altogether, it's hard for prose to play allusively without seeming turgid.

So it goes, too, with visual and spatial art.  Around 1920, that brash jokester Duchamp tagged a mustachioed Mona with a vulgar schoolyard pun.

Marcel Duchamp, ca. 1919 and then on and on.

(For the Gallically disinclined: reading the letters aloud in French makes one say "Elle a chaud au cul" — an observation unsuited to polite company.  French lends itself to this sort of pun, as a legion of Speak-and-Spell-wielding youth will testify.)

On a mission to shock the bourgeoisie, Duchamp kicked off a new wave in the longtime cheapening of time-honored bawd.  Just prior to this, but almost entirely without force in Duchamp's proto-postmodern context, was the sexual allusiveness of Degas:

Degas, Dancers at the Bar, 1900, Phillips Collection

So frequent were his graphical forays into the world of dance that a representation by Degas of some ballerina stretching thus, or adjusting her slipper, or otherwise assuming a complex or lyrical stance seems straightforwardly representational.  Similarly simple seem the shiny statuettes (by the seashore):

Degas, Dancer Looking at the Sole of Her Right Foot, ca. 1900, Metropolitan Museum

We're in territory not far from Duchamp but several steps removed from the schoolyard.  In French, the expression "prendre son pied" (to take one's foot) means "to experience pleasure" and has the specifically sexual connotation of orgasm.  This erotic idiom is often used figuratively nowadays to express with hyperbole any sort of pleasure at all– Q: "Did you like the new Star Trek movie?"  A: "Ah oui, j'ai pris mon pied!".  (This is similar to the cavalier way English speakers toss around the suffix "-gasm", as in "Geekgasm".)

By way of this idiom, Degas invests some, and therefore all, of his graphical and plastic dancers with another layer of allusion to intensify the already erotic connotations of classical dance.  The indirection is not subtle, but it is somewhat less obvious and grating than "LHOOQ" since the foot-touching gesture makes literal sense on its own terms within the theatrical context: sometimes, a touching of the foot is just a touching of the foot.

This brings us, of course, to pirates.  How did it come to pass that "to take one's foot" became an idiom for orgasm?  Prior to the Revolution, and therefore prior to the metric system, the French used measurements akin to the imperial system.  When corsairs went to divide their spoils after a stint of rapine, each would naturally demand his portion of the whole.  The allotted part, by convention, was a foot-high mound of booty.  No, really.

Taking his foot of gold was the pirate's pleasure.  Since not everything that happens in Tortuga stays in Tortuga, taking the foot gradually became anyone's pleasure in anything, and eventually ended up a punchline in Amélie.  And just as a noble, sexy, piraty bit of bawd has by now been stripped bare by its broad overuse in French, so too has the vitality of allusiveness in our mother tongue suffered under the weight of too popular a press.  We've seen enough; it's time to close your eyes and think of English.

So let's insist that the media fanning the torrid flames of political passion and self-immolation avert their gaze from gossip.  Let's demand actual journalistic attention to news worthy of the name, even if the purveyors of parley have to trim their sales.

Eventually, you have to put your foot down.

By now, you have all seen the footage of Bush nimbly ducking two thrown shoes in Iraq. My favorite part of the the video is the token effort at defense the Iraqi Prime Minister makes with the second shoe. Actually, the whole video is pretty spectacular, if you haven't seen it, definitely check it out. The attack, by an Egyptian journalist, led to some breathless, unintentionally funny reporting. For instance, this handy cultural tip:

"In Iraqi culture, throwing shoes at someone is a sign of contempt."

As opposed to other cultures, where it is just a sign of contempt. Seriously, how does that tradition evolve? I mean giving someone the finger isn't good enough, so go ahead and throw that loafer. That will properly demonstrate how much you don't like the person.

On the other side, ably demonstrating our deep understanding of the situation in Iraq, Bush had this to say after the incident: "So what if a guy threw his shoe at me?"

That sentence could pretty well sum up our attitude towards Iraq.

In the past 24 hours, since news emerged that Obama is leading in a couple of polls in normally Republican North Carolina, I've gotten six calls from what are probably 527 proxies for one or another of Obama or McCain.

I guess I'll have to vote for Bob Barr to show them.

Back in November I wrote about how Dan Levin, a former colleague of mine from the U.S. Attorney's Office, submitted to waterboarding as part of a process of writing a memorandum on torture while at DoJ. At the time ABC reported that he had been forced out after writing a memo harshly criticizing torture and classifying waterboarding as torture.

ABC News has a new report discussing Levin's recent Congressional testimony and additional information from DoJ sources confirming that Dan was forced out. Moreover, the sources suggest that former AG Alberto Gonzales dangled a potential future U.S. Attorney spot in front of Levin to smooth over the transition to a far less prestigious position at the NSC. That explains why DoJ would have been putting Dan on a short list for USAO spots even after he had been forced out.

But Dan's no dummy.

Levin took the NSC job in March 2005. The U.S. attorney position never materialized, and sources close to Levin say he never believed Gonzales was serious. He went on to take a job in private practice.

More deep thinking deep in the heart of Texas: via Nobody's Business, an article that in a more normal country would be parody, but in this country is not:

HOUSTON – Robert Hurt went to Washington and didn't like what he saw – nudity in the nation's capital.

"Nude women, sculptured women," he told the state Republican platform committee, which sat in rapt attention.

Of all the evils in Washington that the Texas GOP took aim at this week, removing art with naked people from public view was high on the list for Mr. Hurt, a delegate from Kerrville.

"You don't have nude art on your front porch," he explained. "You possibly don't have nude art in your living rooms. So why is it important to have that in the common places of Washington, D.C.?"

Mr. Hurt offered statistics: He'd heard that 20 percent of the art in the National Gallery of Art is of nudes.

He offered detail: On Arlington Memorial Bridge overlooking the famed national cemetery, "there are two Lady Godivas, two women on horses with no shirt on and long hair."

Actually, they are classical sculptures about war – one called Valor, depicting a male equestrian and a female with a shield, and Sacrifice, a female accompanying the rider Mars.

I'm glad that the Texas Republican Party has what it takes to address this burning issue, which has to date languished for the simple and inadequate reason that no one else was shallow, insufferably prudish, and fucking moronic enough to take it up.

It's not clear whether the policy scouring the National Gallery of Art of Botticellis until a more respectable 98% of art is boob-free will make it into the platform, which is currently full of other issues burning and not so burning:

In this, a presidential year, it advocates prayer in school, getting out of the United Nations, teaching intelligent design with evolution in science classes, repealing of the minimum wage, declaring illegal immigrants criminals and outlawing abortion with no exceptions.

Maybe in the intelligent design classes they could ask why God made us with dirty sculptor-enticing parts in the first place, and then pray for all the naughty art to be magically transformed into Thomas Kincaide paintings of glowy red-state hunting lodges or something. That would be awesome.

The National Press Club, well known venue for luminous events and addresses by Presidents, monarchs, ambassadors, and public intellectuals of the day, is proud, very proud, of its ethics and reputation for truth and rigor:

Ethics
Walter William's Journalist's Creed

This creed was written by Walter Williams (1864-1935), the man who founded the world's first school of journalism at the University of Missouri and perhaps contributed more toward the promotion of professional journalism than any other person of his time.

I believe in the profession of Journalism.

I believe that the public journal is a public trust; that all connected with it are, to the full measure of responsibility, trustees for the public; that acceptance of lesser service than the public service is a betrayal of this trust.

I believe that clear thinking, clear statement, accuracy and fairness are fundamental to good journalism.

That's why the National Press Club hosts so many important events and speakers.

Oh, and it also booked Larry Sinclair for next Wednesday at 3:00 P.M. in the "Veritas Room."

Wait a minute, you say. That name is familiar. Who is Larry Sinclair again?

Oh, yeah. He's the lunatic who went on YouTube with his claims of having had a drug-fueled gay sex romp with Barack Obama in the back of a limousine 1999. He's the one who, in exchange for $10,000 offered by a former porn site, agreed to a polygraph test and flunked it. He's the nutcase who also sued Obama, David Axelrod, and the Democratic National Committee, alleging they defamed him in denying that Obama smoked crack and had sex with him in 1999.

Larry is crowing about how now he's achieved respectability and credibility since the National Press Club is hosting him for a payment of $3,000. I'm not surprised; if they gave me a podium I'd feel the same way.

Let this be a clarion call to all of our nation's tinfoil-wearers, conspiracy theorists, freaks, and deinstitutionalized mentally ill: for the cost of a good vacation to Hawaii, you can have a nationally prestigious platform from which to spout your views. Does the "Veritas Room" give you insufficient gravitas? Don't worry, the Edward R. Murrow room is available. Make sure you book soon; presidents and monarchs are always trying to get on the schedule. Flat-earther? Foe of ZOG? Holocaust denier? Alien abductee? Ron Paul supporter? Fear not, there's no discrimination here. In journalism, accuracy, and fairness we trust — but $3,000 is $3,000, Jack.

I'm sure the National Press Club would love to hear from you.

Via.

European truckers and other frequent drivers are protesting high fuel prices. Various government luminaries are proposing a McCain/Clinton style repeal of gas taxes, which in the red-tape-intensive Europe would require the sign-off of the entire freaking EU, a task that would be described as Herculean if Hercules were a bureaucratic wonk.

Yet it's not clear what truckers are hoping to accomplish by cursing the darkness. Even in Europe, the government is not price-fixing gasoline. Market forces largely out of the government's control, and evidently out of its comprehension, are fixing gasoline prices. As was discussed here in America earlier during the Obama/Clinton smackdown, cutting the taxes is a Hello Kitty bandaid on an arterial gusher. What's worse, you're going to drop the price an insignificant fraction, encourage people to drive significantly more because of irrational human behavior, and thereby drive up demand and drive up the prices even higher. That's stupid. Unfortunately, many politicians would rather do a stupid, stupid thing than admit that government is at best powerless and at worst actively harmful when it addresses some economic forces. If they admitted that, people might have less faith in the government, and therefore less faith in them. Prestige would dwindle. Power would wane. Politics would cease to be even show business for ugly people; it would be merely ugly people for ugly people. Who wants that?

Not John McCain, at least. He's back to calling for a gas tax holiday. At least he hasn't yet stooped to the Clintonian levels of sneering at economists.

I'm very unlikely to vote for Bob Barr. I'm more of a civil libertarian and he's more of a federalist libertarian. But that's a discussion for another day. For today, via John Cole, I see that Barr has made a statement that I wish more (relatively) serious candidates would stand up and say: the War on Drugs is a failure.

And let me just say, if you have to flip-flop on an issue, this is the way to do it:

Continue Reading »

Looks like the U.S. has decided to give up on playing a role in the farce that is the U.N. Human Rights Council – or, at least, has decided to posture as if it is doing so. From a State Department press briefing last Friday:

QUESTION: Another subject? Did U.S. decide to cut all cooperation with the Council on Human Rights?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, no. Look, our skepticism regarding the function of the UN Council on Human Rights in terms of fulfilling its mandate and its mission is well known. It has a rather pathetic record in that regard. Instead of focusing on some of the real and deep human rights issues around the world, it has really turned into a forum that seems to be almost solely focused on bashing Israel.

In the – the Secretary has taken the decision that we will engage the Human Rights Council really only when we believe that there are matters of deep national interest before the Council and we feel compelled; otherwise, we are not going to. Part of our strategy is to take a look at any suggestions or thoughts we might have to improve the performance of the Council. There’s a five-year review period, and that review period is going to fall outside the term of this Administration, but of course, we’ll – we feel as stewards of the national interest, we are going to think about ways that might improve the function of the Council.

QUESTION: So what does that mean, and when was this decision made?

MR. MCCORMACK: I can’t tell you what day, but recently.

QUESTION: Well, what does it mean that you will engage the Council only when there are matters of deep national interest? I notice that today – that, I mean, at the (inaudible) today, they were speaking about Burma. Isn’t that something of deep national interest to the United States? You didn’t speak to – they didn’t speak to that.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. You know, simply put, Matt, because we don’t think it is a serious institution in dealing with human rights –

QUESTION: No, no, I understand that.

MR. MCCORMACK: — human rights issues, we are going to take a more reserved approach in terms of engaging the Council, just because the – our ability and the ability of others to really influence this body is proven to be rather minimal over the past couple of years, and as a result we are just – we’re going to choose more selectively how and when to engage the Council.

The Council currently includes China, Cuba, and Egypt. That's like having a U.N. Council on Physical Fitness staffed by Fat Bastard, Keith Richards, and me.

This is probably the right call for now. The Council's a joke. It's ineffectual at actually protecting human rights — probably because it's staffed by countries for whom human rights is at best a low priority and at worst a slogan used by Western countries to criticize them. It's obsessed with foolishness like banning "defamation of religion." It's unapologetically and transparently biased against Israel. Continued participation by the U.S. would just give it more credibility than it deserves. And it's not like the U.S. itself has much human rights credibility these days. Though a colorable argument can be made that anything we've done since 9/11 pales in comparison to routine human rights abuses in other countries, we certainly are not covering ourselves in human rights glory, and it's unlikely that any country is interested in sitting still to hear us talk about it.

Although this administration's decision to walk away from the Council is almost certainly posturing and in support of policies with which I disagree, I think it's the right step.

The less I say about last night's Democratic primary results the better. I've already tipped my hand about how Hillary Clinton managed to convert me from neutral to distaste, and there's not much point in me describing how listening to her speech Tuesday night made me want to swerve into oncoming traffic.

Continue Reading »

Washington D.C. is contemplating a sort of reverse "Escape From New York" scenario, where people driving into particular neighborhoods will be stopped by the police and turned away unless they can give what the police consider to be a legitimate reason to be there:

D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier announced a military-style checkpoint yesterday to stop cars this weekend in a Northeast Washington neighborhood inundated by gun violence, saying it will help keep criminals out of the area.

Starting on Saturday, officers will check drivers' identification and ask whether they have a "legitimate purpose" to be in the Trinidad area, such as going to a doctor or church or visiting friends or relatives. If not, the drivers will be turned away.

Seeing the sights, chilling, cruising, and just getting in your car and going wherever you want is not a legitimate reason, apparently. Although the police apparently assume that the killers and drug dealers they are hoping to deter are lazy; they aren't stopping pedestrians. Scooters? Sedgways? Not yet clear.

You might remember that this is the same mayor and police chief who announced a program in which police would go door to door asking nicely if they could come in to search for guns. I'm sure their manners would be impeccable.

These programs won't be happening in Georgetown, in case you were wondering.

Note to blogger Gopalan Nair:

Your dogged criticism of the legal and political elite of Singapore is in the best tradition of journalism. Though your accusation that judge Belinda Ang Saw Ean was "prostituting herself" was insulting, it was fair comment in light of her tolerance of a lawsuit in which Singapore's ruling elite is using defamation law to suppress political dissent.

However….

This is what is known, in American political parlance, as "pulling a Gary Hart:"

I am Gopalan Nair. Today is May 31, 2008 at 10.40am Singapore time. I am at present in Singapore at Broadway Hotel, Room 708, 195 Serangoon Road, Singapore, 218067. The hotel telephone number is is 62924661. My local SingTel telephone number is 83764236.

I'm all in favor of you defying Singapore's ludicrous and oppressive defamation laws. But there's taking the bullet during battle in the interests of freedom, and then there's jumping in front of the bullet in the interests of self-promotion. Daring the officials of Singapore to jail you — a group that is thirsty for blood, not having caned any disaffected teenaged expats for more than a decade — seems to rush past courting danger and reach a level of pulling up to danger on a street corner and offering it $200 for a blow job.

Your arrest was not exactly a shock.

Dude, the point of blogging is that you can say anything you want and they can't do anything about it. What's the deal with telling them where to find you?

Everyone knows that if we can't keep ourselves safe, the terrorists win. Hence we must strive to eliminate all threats to air security. Like T-shirts and necklaces.

Continue Reading »