Heh, Troy Patterson and Rebbecca Traister look at the new, unprecedented, never before witnessed phenomena of 40 year old women bagging 20 year old dudes. Evidently there's not just a reality show about this on TV, there's actually a sitcom coming out which will explain to us why "The Graduate" never got made. Meh. Here's Traister on the show:
So because the men her age have a ticking clock and she no longer does, she tries to fulfill her romantic dreams by moving in with 20 men under 30, the kinds of guys "who can keep up" with her. Evidence that they can "keep up" begins with their arrival on some kind of frat party bus, where they are shown swigging beers and saying things like, "I can't wait to meet this cougar!" and "I really hope this cougar likes lamb, cause I'm nice and sweet and tender." Ah, liberation! Sweet, hot congress with dudes you were so glad you never had to deal with again after graduation! Mee-ow.
Is it possible that Stacey -- and all the other women who embrace the term "cougar" -- don't know that, on some level, they're being laughed at?
Original "Cougar" author Valerie Gibson has claimed that the term was coined as derogatory (no shit!), in reference to older women who went out drinking and went home with whatever guys were left at the end of the night -- like the weakest members of the pack, see? And even though women are making extravagant efforts to reclaim it as empowering, it remains offensive and dehumanizing on almost every level, as "Daily Show" senior women's issues commentator Kristin Schaal illustrated in a piece in which she had an animal handler carry a grown woman to the news desk, Jack Hanna style, so that Jon Stewart could examine her up close: "Do you want to hold her, Jon?"
Slow down Rebecca, you're killing em.They aren't laughing at her because she's enjoyed the company of young dudes--they're laughing at her because she's called a cougar. Much as I would, now, laugh at any dude who, with no sense of irony, referred to himself as a "sugardaddy."
Look, people come together in all kinds of ways, for all kinds of reasons. I'm a huge believer that the human race's survival depends on this fact. If you're 20 and you fall for someone older than you, it's all love. If you're 40 and you fall in love with someone who's 20, it's mo' love. If you just have a friend with benefits who's half--or twice--your age, it may not be love, but it hopefully it's peach pie. But all of that said, don't let them turn you into a name, into a marketing ploy.
On another note, a lot of this reminds me of the 70s, and blaxploitation's odd obsession with white women. There was this whole line of Cleaveresque Black Power logic that argued that it was somehow empowering to mimic one of the more repulsive relics of White Power--the sexual subjugation of black women. This isn't a perfect parallel, I know. But there is that kind of, "Well, if my ex-husband can be lecherous, so can I."
The obvious backdrop is a long history of men engaging whatever fantasy suits them, and then standing in judgement of women's sexual predilictions. That's a nasty problem. But I don't think embracing a sexuality, which much be animalized in order to be accepted, helps much.
Glenn Greenwald points the way:
Jane Harman is so shrill and angry today. She sounds like some sort of unhinged leftist blogger. As The Washington Post's Dana Milbank so insightfully asked this week, what could any Democrat possibly have to be angry about? After all, they won. I wonder how long it's going to be before Harman joins the ACLU? What's that old saying -- a "civil liberties extremist" is a former Bush-enabling, Surveillance State-defending Blue Dog who learns that their own personal conversations were intercepted by the same government that they demanded be vested with unchecked power...
I'm reading Phillip Dray's rather incredible history of Reconstruction, Capitol Men, told from the perspective of the nation's first black Congressmen. I'm only 90 pages in, but I'm immediately reminded of why I love great books about history. Probably out of necessity, history is taught to us in a utilitarian form--a list of facts, dates, names and ultimate results. But a great book doesn't go from event to event, and it's not over-interested in getting to the end. This is sort of an extension of my comments about plot and character, and the problems of Black History Month.
Capitol Men is, in many ways, a sad book. But that isn't the point. The point is Robert
Charles Smalls, a biracial black man born into slavery, who plots with his fellow slaves to steal a Confederate ship, and upon reaching Union lines exclaims to his black brethren, "We're all free niggers now!" The point is the rather mystical, and likely fraudulent, Robert Brown Elliot, who was trilingual and had this mysterious past--almost literally hailing from parts unknown. In 1869, Elliot accused a Union vet of trying to woo his wife, then whipped him in the middle of Columbia, South Carolina. The next day the local paper ran the following headline--"A Negro From Massachusetts Cowhides a White Carpetbagger." The point is Elias Hill--a 50-year old black preacher and dwarf who was beaten by the Klan, and immediately left, with his congregation in tow, for Liberia.
The point is people, people, people. We should never presume to know too much of them. They always surprise us. Anyway, it's a great book.
"That's going to be real hard, to be honest with you," Cornyn said of keeping Democrats from reaching 60 seats, adding:
"Everybody who runs could be the potential tipping point to get Democrats to 60. We've not only got to play defense; we've got to claw our way back in 2010. It'll be a huge challenge."
So far this cycle, Republicans have been faced with retirements in four swing states, emerging primaries against at least three of their members and a map that, after two cycles of big GOP losses, continues to favor Democrats.
For Cornyn, the man tasked with avoiding sinking below 41 seats, it's become a very tough job. And it's clear he's nervous.
Aside from all the developments so far, the one race Cornyn brought up unprompted in a lengthy interview with The Hill was Texas, where Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) is aiming for the governor's mansion and could vacate her seat at any time, paving the way for an open, no-primary free-for-all in the Lone Star State.
Indications lately have been that she will remain in her seat, which isn't up until 2012. But her Texas colleague made it clear Monday that he's not counting his blessings just yet."What I am concerned about is that it will be a special election that will be held perhaps as early as May 2010," Cornyn said. "I don't want this to turn into a situation where we elect a Democrat in Texas and further erode our possibilities."
I don't think Cornyn should worry so much. The way forward is clear: Talk more about tea parties and torture. Have thrice-married, known adulterers, offer more sanctimonious lectures to Americans on "traditional marriage." Then have thrice-married, cross-dressing Manhattanites make the case against gay marriage. Make Sarah Palin the face of your party. Keep Dick Cheney talking. And when all else fails, just ask yourself this question, "What would Rush do?" Follow these steps, and I promise, you will give new meaning to the term "minority party." You have the power.
Well what can I say, like JJ in a gold cape...
I thought about linking some old New Edition videos. Maybe later. For now, I'll indulge myself. Here I am reading two poems by Frederick Seidel at Russian Samovar. All you need to know about this reading is they gave me free vodka--thus explaining my inability to pronounce "exemplar."
Anyway, there was something transgressive about this entire exercise. The first poem is about a son who's father exhibits a kind of paternal racism toward his black servants, and how the implicit brutality of it all thrills the son. The second poem ends with Seidel admiring the woman's "blond hair at dawn"--among other things. Readers of this blog will know how distant I am from both paternal racism, and any woman's "blond hair at dawn." OK, being from Baltimore where the black girls dye their hair all sorts of colors, I confess to knowing a little about "blond hair at dawn."
But my point is that reading these pieces was like living in someone else's skin for a moment. And yet, in some deep sense, finding myself there at the bone. It is human to revel in brutality--race is irrelevant to this fact. It is human to revel in beauty---race is irrelevant to this fact.
Hilzoy goes off on Robert Gibbs:
That's why I found today's White House briefing so infuriating:
"Q So I understand, you're saying that people in the CIA who followed through in what they were told was legal, they should not be prosecuted. But why not the Bush administration lawyers who, in the eyes of a lot of your supporters on the left, twisted the law -- why are they not being held accountable?
MR. GIBBS: The President is focused on looking forward, that's why."You know what? I'm focused on looking forward too. And as I gaze into my crystal ball, I see a world in which members of the executive branch take it for granted that they can do whatever they want with impunity. Why not break the law? Why not eavesdrop on Americans? Why not torture people? Why not detain citizens indefinitely without charges? Heck, why not impose martial law and make yourself dictator for life? There is nothing to stop the people who make these decisions. They have nothing to fear. Because once they've made them, their actions are back there, in the past that no one ever wants to look at.
I also see a world in which everyone takes it for granted that there are two kinds of people, as far as the law is concerned. If most people tried to make the case that prosecuting their criminal acts was just "looking backwards", or a sign that the prosecutor was motivated by a desire for retribution, they'd be laughed out of court. Imagine the likely reaction if your average crack dealer were to urge the judge not to dwell on the past, or if someone who used accounting fraud to flip houses told offered a prosecutor the chance to be "very Mandelalike in the sense [of] saying let the past be the past and let us move into the future", or if I were pulled over for speeding and, when asked if I knew how fast I was going, replied that "Some things in life need to be mysterious ... Sometimes you need to just keep walking." I don't think any of us would get very far.
The only way you can embrace the "Looking Forward" line of logic, or the "some things in life need to be mysterious" line of logic, is to accept that the law works one way for people who've accrued political power, and another way for those who don't. The worst part is its not even necessary. I think a lot of us would accept what Obama said yesterday. A lot of us have sympathy for troops in the field who, as Hilzoy, were following the OLC. But from those who drafted the guidelines, we'd like some answers.
Greatest return ever...
Again. Watch it if you want. I simply can't.
Larry Kudlow (yelling, yelling, yelling) claims Obama gave Chavez a "Boyz N The Hood" handshake.
A friend wrote me this morning to say I was unduly harsh in my reply to KCN. This is likely true. One problem with highlighting your commenters is you have to respect the basic asymmetry--you have the megaphone, not them. Smugness and sarcasm doen't really exhibit that sort of respect.
Having said that, I wanted folks to understand why this line of cultural argument rankles so much. For those who know this, I'm sorry to repeat. But it's indispensable to what I'm about to say.
You guys know me--I came up in Baltimore, during the crack era, across the street from Mondawmin Mall (before they added that Target). I was born out of wedlock (my parents married when I was four) to a father with kids strewn across the city. I went to public school all my life. I spent much of childhood underachieving in school--until high school when I summarily failed out of school. Twice. I went to college, but dropped-out. I've got an eight-year old son out of wedlock. I've been living in sin with his mother for years now. For the vast majority of those years, her income has dwarfed mine--some years even tripled it.
From a socio-economic perspective, that's my biography. Rightly or wrongly, I identify with people who come up in a similar fashion, while at the same time recognizing the great diversity amongst them.
This isn't about hood credentialism. I ran from more fights than I stood for. I think Dungeons & Dragons changed my life. I never lived in the projects. I never worried once about what would be for dinner. I rocked my share of off-brands, but all I ever really wanted for, as a child, were a pair of Lottoes, a Le Coq Sportif sweat-suit, and cable television. When I talk, my diction bears all of those experiences, and one of the reasons I chose not to change it, is because I want you to know who I am and where I've been, because that's exactly what I'd want out of you.
The world is yours.
One reason why I reject the hamfisted argument that marriage is the best option for everyone, everywhere, at all times, as well as its oft-invoked corollary that none of this applies to gays, is that it's an argument that overstates our knowledge of other people's lives. In its worst form, its invoked by characters so sanctimonious that you smell the bad faith on their breath before they utter a word.
Far be it from me to say that Newt Gingrich's 1981 decision to ask his first wife for a divorce while she was in the hospital recuperating from cancer should bar him from commenting on the value of traditional marriage. But six months after the divorce was finalized, he married a new woman, Marianne Ginther, which suggests there was some infidelity involved. Then in 2000 he divorced Ginther and married a third woman with whom it turns out he'd been having an affair. That, I think, is a bit much. Then after that, he became a Catholic!
As for Guliani, I don't know how much his postion is going to help him. He's in favor of "civil unions."