You're behind the curve on this one, Shawn. That's Nina Burleigh writing, she of the offer, back in the Clinton years, to give Bubba "a b.j. myself for keeping abortion legal."
The Spectacle Blog
I came across a remarkable column on AlterNet today about a mother's revulsion at her five year-old boy's patriotism and her joy at his shedding of the lies his teacher told him. It's insanely long-winded, but worth checking out for a few choice bits. An electronic sample platter:
The Harlem unit of the National Guard was putting on a Christmas clothing drive for Iraqi children. On the way into the city, I tried to explain to my son what we were doing, and -- as best I could -- why. As we crossed the George Washington Bridge and the Manhattan skyline spread out below us, I began to give him a variation on the "Africans don't have any food, finish your dinner" talk. I wanted him to understand how privileged he was to live in a place where bombs don't rain from the sky. It was a talk I'd tried to have before, but not one he'd ever paid much attention to until that day, trapped in the backseat of our car.
You would think that a nation such as Russia, with a very large Islamic terrorism problem of its own, wouldn't be joining with Iran to fund the terrorist government of Hamas in the Palestinian territories. And you'd be wrong.
Putin's support for Hamas is gratuitous, but for one aspect. By joining with Iran, he's making it as clear as can humanly be that there will be no UN action against Iran. It would be nice to hear something from Foggy Bottom on this. Or even the White House. Don't hold your breath.
We're hearing a Snow announcement could be coming in the next day or so. The names aren't radically different from what other people have been saying, though there is talk that perhaps the President is going to look inside his current Cabinet for the new Treasury Secretary. Nothing like the famous switcheroo President Reagan pulled with his team, but still, a bit of a curve.
As for Tony Snow, you read between the lines and it is clear that a number of people appear to be setting up senior White House counselor Dan Bartlett as the fall guy. For example, stories this morning are reporting that Snow wants "access" to the President and a chunk of responsibility currently under Bartlett's control. If Snow for some reason chooses not to take the job (and very people have ever said "No" to the President), it will almost assuredly be spun as Bartlett's fault or the President's fault for supporting a long-time adviser over a smart hire.
Hot on the dug-in heels of certain Cardinals opposed to the enforcement of immigration law comes this little DC church parking/double parking imbroglio -- and once again certain religious folk are up in arms about the enforcement of the laws. The DC double-parking laws, along church-heavy streets, have not recently been enforced, although they've duly been kept on the books. They certainly cannot be said to have lapsed -- particularly now that Logan Circle area residents really need them. The habitual violation of the double-parking law, however, is inaccurately advertised by disgruntled churchgoers as "a minor inconvenience." Convenience isn't the point.
Fr. Jenkins, President of the University of Notre Dame, didn't end the controversy over the Vagina Monologues with his flaccid "closing statement." (Read more from AmSpecBlog on it here.) He has succeeded in emboldening those who wish to water down ND's Catholic identity, and in alienating those who wish to preserve the traditional understanding of a Catholic university.
One of the voices in the latter crowd includes philosopher Professor Charles Rice. Rice concludes that Jenkins' surrendering closing statement also marks the closing of his presidency, and calls on him to resign in today's Observer.
A short blurb in the Wash Post this morning reports that a House "lobbying reform" bill is finally headed to a floor vote this week. Gee, whiz. Whatever. It turns out that this version of "reform" does NOT require lobbyists "to keep track of their contacts with lawmakers and report fundraising activities." In other words, less and less actual reform. Now I'm not one who says that lobbyists are evil; far from it. But the public does have a right to transparency when lobbyists and money (either for lunches/trips/favors or for campaigns) are tied together with lawmakers. Saying that lobbyists can't have access would of course be unconstitutional. But for PAID lobbyists who ALSO donate money to lawmakers to do so without disclosure is to invite corruption. Even in the wake of the Abramoff scandals, it amazes me that the House doesn't seem to understand this.