NEW VOICE COLUMN UP...

...about how, as the seasons change, so must the news cycles, as the rightbloggers' all-scandal programming is interrupted by events relating to women, minorities, and other things conservatives just don't handle very well.

WHEELS WITHIN WHEELS.

I see the brethren are hot on the case of Michael Hastings' murder by Obama, the FBI, and possibly the Illuminati.

What I want to know is: Why are they not connecting the dots on James Gandolfini's so-called "massive heart attack"? Did they not notice that the Obamacare Quislings of the American Medical Association just declared obesity a disease?

51-year-old celebrities don't usually have heart attacks, do they? Could it be that the very existence of a happy, healthy celebrity of size made a mockery of their obesity-disease claims, and presented a threat to their health fascist takeover plans that they just couldn't tolerate?

Also, didn't Andrew Breitbart die of a "heart attack"? I rest my case.

Connect the dots! With Gandolfini out of the way, they're now free to criminalize high-fat Red State vittles, authorize Federal fitness Nazi inspectors to caliper our daughters, and send Rush Limbaugh to a concentration fat camp. Why, it'll be even worse than the Healthy Choices Act.

WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

IN PLAIN SIGHT.

James Taranto, who thinks the American gynarchs are waging "war on men," catalogues the unkind comments women have made about him (e.g., "woman-hating troll"). While butchly insisting these barbs don't bother him, Taranto laments that the ladies are brutal in ways he and his fellow oppressed males would never be:

All this viciousness was in the service of denying that there is, as we wrote in yesterday's article, a "war on men." Well, imagine if a prominent feminist journalist wrote about the "war on women" and dozens of conservative male writers responded by subjecting her to similar verbal abuse. Would that not be prima facie evidence that she was on to something?

Taranto seems not to have heard of that key figure in the "war on women," Sandra Fluke -- pretty prominent and a journalist as well as a law student. It wouldn't be hard to get up to speed: I wrote a couple of columns about some of his colleagues' reactions to Fluke (for example, "Rush Calls Some Slut a Slut and Everyone Gets Sand in Their Collective V@g!n@"), but if Taranto doesn't want to endure my prose, he can just put "Sandra Fluke" and "whore" into Google.

You know, I'm just kidding. I'm sure Taranto has heard of Sandra Fluke. I'm even fairly confident that he knows where the power actually resides in male-female social relationships. He's just very good at pretending not to.

UPDATE. In comments, Jay B: "Uh, yeah. It's almost like Amanda Marcotte doesn't exist. Or Jessica Valenti. Or Joan Walsh. Or Naomi Klein. Or any woman writer at The Nation. Imagine though if those people existed, I'm sure conservatives would be gallant." Amanda particularly seems to attract the psycho freaks of the right, probably because she pretty clearly doesn't give a shit, an attitude known to infuriate bullies.

UPDATE 2. Removed reference to "screenwriter" among Fluke's achievements -- I had conflated her with Lena Dunham, for obvious reasons.

THE BIG DEATH SCENE.

A bad week for deaths, already -- Michael Hastings, Kim Thompson, Chet Flippo. And James Gandolfini. Gandolfini was a journeyman who got noticed by the Times (thanks @johnmcquaid) apartment-surfing in 1988 ("Mr. Gandolfini, 26 years old, has never had his name on a lease, never paid more than $400 a month in rent... 'Moving, to me, is no big deal,' said Mr. Gandolfini, whose calling is the theater but whose living comes mostly from bartending and construction...") and built a career before and after The Sopranos. Tony Soprano was his world-class achievement.

As @Mobute observed, "It's not his fault impotent suburban WASPs fetishized a sociopath and made the Tony thing kinda creepy." Much of the show's, and the character's, popularity was based on all that funny Bada-Bing bullshit. And Gandolfini's great gift for showing Tony's monstrously childlike glee at what he could get away with was part of the pleasure that drew us into the show. But his other appetites and his sufferings were equally childlike and monstrous, and as the bodies piled up and the walls closed in Tony became less likable. But still we watched him.

I talked about this a bit during the last Sopranos season -- how the endgame that revolted some people then made perfect sense from an artistic and a moral point of view. Gandolfini's contribution to this was very important. Chase didn't give him the sentimental glimmers that post-Code Hollywood gangsters got -- and Gandolfini, bless him, didn't try to stick them in. When Tony found something pleasing in a woman, or a sushi restaurant, or a big score, it eventually soured in his mouth, but he didn't stop to think about it -- he just went on looking for something else to devour, encouraged by custom, crap psychotherapy, an absurd caricature of family feeling, and the dream we are accustomed to call American.  Tony took every excuse not to notice that he had to change or die, and Gandolfini was given the task of showing us how a man could live that way. That he was a gangster made that life superficially exciting, but at bottom Tony was a small-town success who might intuit enough to despise, Babbitt-like, the cheap glow of his short horizons, but never found the courage to climb over them.

Gandolfini didn't sentimentalize this in the least. Over the course of the show Tony's life became a painful thing to watch. But we stuck with him. When Tony looked for an easy exit, we hoped he would find it. Like enabling relatives we ceased to wish for his redemption and came to wish only for his deliverance. Maybe Olivier or Gielgud could have sustained that over six seasons, and maybe they couldn't; Gandolfini did. It was a great piece of work.

THE GULLS CAN'T HELP IT.

It seems as if the Republican shitstorms have had an effect; their distorted portrayal of the IRS mess, and their pretense of civil libertarianism over the NSA revelations, have pulled down Obama's approval ratings. Good work! So, geniuses, what's the follow-up?

House passes late-term abortion ban
The House voted Tuesday to impose a nationwide ban on abortions after 22 weeks of pregnancy over Democratic objections that the bill represents a dramatic attempt by Republicans to restrict abortion rights... 

With limited exceptions, the legislation would ban the abortion of a fetus younger than 20 weeks old, or at 22 weeks of pregnancy under a different measuring system. The ban would be backed by possible fines against doctors, as well as prison sentence of as many as five years.

What can you say about a movement that, having expertly wielded the dark chords of the Mighty Wurlitzer to get the audience to hiss Obama, suddenly segues into America's least favorite Gospel number accompanied by the Crazy Cletus Fetus Brigade? And sends its fine young men like Yuval Levin of National Review out on stage with a bucket on one foot to say stuff like this:

The front page of today’s New York Times carries a story about the late-term-abortion ban being considered in the House. The headline in the print edition is “Unfazed by 2012, G.O.P. Is Seeking Abortion Limits.” As if the people struggling to save the lives of innocent children whose only crime is that they are unwanted by their mothers or would disrupt somebody’s plans should be “fazed” into inaction by the 2012 election...

It's like they're trying to get people to imagine pregnant women chained to cots in a forced birthing center festooned with crosses and pictures of Todd Akin.

I think for some of them it's a perverse sort of strategy, based on a certainty that citizens will swoon for this sort of thing -- no pale pastels! But for most of them, I think it's just a tic. Or maybe that's too mild. Maybe it's a form of epilepsy.

However buttoned-down the operation can be, however smoothly things are running, every so often the brethren simply have to ululate and handle snakes in public. You may have forgotten that, because the Romney campaign was such a mess. After the tenth or twelfth time the Democrats dollied in on a Republican face that had been blackened by an exploding cigar, you came to assume that the Dems had gotten super-great at politics. They've certainly improved from when I was a young man, but they have mostly been fortunate that their opponents started having such frequent and spectacular seizures.

This is a natural consequence of the conservative anomie that has in recent months been frequently and hilariously discussed. Over the past five or six years, nearly all their crazy ideas have been discredited or at least called into question. People have tumbled to the fact that, unless carefully watched, the dynamo of capitalism will inevitably overheat and blow up your economy; that ginning up wars in the Middle East doesn't make the country safer; that you don't need fundamentalists to win elections if you have women and minorities; etc.

In fact, the recent conservative successes I mentioned are based on a total reversal of their position on surveillance from the last time they held power. Victory in any guise is gratifying, and so this must be to them -- but it comes with a price: it abstracts them still further from their true authoritarian and xenophobic nature. Why, the strain must be even greater than pretending to give a shit about Mexicans. And that's why they run amok.

What they need is someone forceful and charismatic to hold them in line and make them behave -- but it can't be one of the old-timers 'cause they're all RINO squares. So far I see Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz...

It'll be an interesting couple of years.

NEW VOICE COLUMN UP...

...following up on the NSA stuff. The brethren aren't trying so hard now to affect shock at breaches of the Fourth Amendment: They just insist that NSA is, like everything else coming out of the White House these days, a Scandal, and stir the shit.

One of my finds for which I had no room was the only libertarian on earth who isn't making a big thing of this: John Stossel --

...many libertarians are furious at this latest intrusion of "Big Brother." 

So what's wrong with me? I just can't get that worked up about it...

So it's invasive, probably illegal and maybe useless. I ought to be very angry. But I'm not. Why? 

I need to keep thinking about this issue, but for now, two reasons: 

1. Terrorists do want to murder us. If the NSA is halfway competent, Big Data should help detect plots.
2. My electronic privacy has already been utterly shredded by Google, Amazon, YouTube and so on... 

I'm angrier about other things Big Government does in the name of keeping me safe: forcing me to wear safety gear, limiting where I may go, stripping me at airports, forcing me to pay $2,300 for more military than we need.

There's a reason why Stossel's on TV and Nick Gillespie isn't, and it ain't photogeneity. At least he realizes, down deep,  that libertarianism is mostly about money and pique.

A FAN'S NUTS.

Let's see what those scamps at kulturkampf site Acculturated are up to. R.J. Moeller:

Our post-modern, secularized, relativistic culture does not quite know what to do with “true believers.” Not, at least, when it comes to deeper questions of mankind’s existence and our relationship to the Divine. We’re strong-to-quite-strong when it comes to dealing with stuff like vapid celebrity Tweets, the YAC (yards after catch) racked up by our favorite fantasy football player, or the “controversy” of an under-performing new movie on its opening weekend. We’re lousy with politicians and pundits who tell us what we want to hear. 

But give us a prominent man or woman with strong, articulated, uncompromising values in the public square–especially if these values are of the traditional, Judeo-Christian variety–and people freak out. 

Enter: Timothy Richard Tebow.

Yes, it's a paen to the world's most famous backup quarterback. Moeller wonders aloud why people are always talking about Tebow's religiosity, and blames a corrupt press ("I dare you to read a single article or column on Tim Tebow that doesn’t make multiple references to his evangelical faith or [lamely] attempt to weave religious-sounding puns into the text of the piece") rather than Tebow's propensity to spontaneously take a knee, make anti-abortion ads for Focus on the Family, and otherwise inform the world at large that he's down with the King.

Also:

As a young religious American who grows increasingly weary of the “Get-Out-of-Jail Free” card that is offered to anyone in our popular culture who espouses spiritual beliefs in literally anything other than Christianity, I am glad that Tim Tebow exists and continues to fight the good fight.

I'm having a hard time thinking of any actors or rock stars who make a big deal of their Zoroastrianism or whatever, at least not since Madonna was playing at Kabbalah in, when was that, 1988? But I don't follow the NFL closely, so maybe that's what he's talking about. Are there Orthodox Jewish players who daven on the field, or Muslims who call a timeout to pray to Mecca? Because then maybe I'd start paying attention again.

I will post here Moeller's closing only because I know many of you refuse to click the links and I don't want you to be deprived:

But I won’t be devastated if I wake up one morning and find a headline about Tebow having a child out of wedlock or about him being rounded-up by police after an all-night Jack Daniels-fueled bender. 

Why? Because my hope is in Him, not Tim. And from every discernible indicator he’s ever given the public, so is Tim’s.

That's just magnificently bad, plus it inspires a wonderful vision of Tebow staggering unshaven and disheveled out of a police station and, as he genuflects for the cameras, blowing a titanic whiskey fart.

FANTASY CAMP.

Ramesh Ponnuru, National Review:

At Media Matters, Accuracy Doesn’t

In criticizing an NR editorial, Hannah Groch-Begley of Media Matters can’t get through her first sentence without getting something wrong. “The National Review editorial board used the murder conviction of Kermit Gosnell to push for an abortion ban it acknowledges to be unconstitutional that would outlaw all abortions after 20 weeks, even in cases when the health of the mother is at risk.” The editorial “acknowledges” no such thing, stating instead that the ban would conflict with Supreme Court decisions that themselves lack constitutional merit. (“The Court should welcome the opportunity to revisit its rulings on the subject, which have been by any measure extreme, to say nothing of their fundamental lack of constitutional merit.”)

Groch-Begley's error, it seems, is calling something unconstitutional because the Supreme Court of the United States found it unconstitutional. I've been reading Marbury v. Madison wrong all these years, apparently, and SCOTUS' judgement on constitutional matters is less meaningful than that of the National Review editorial board.

The rest of the post is bullshit, too. I'm not going to bother to break it down here -- go look; the key phrases are "rarity is of course a matter of perspective" and "she repeats the spin that the Gosnell case resulted from excessive restrictions on abortion. That may be what her side of this debate would like to believe..."

In any case, "At Media Matters, Accuracy Doesn’t" is about the last title Ponnuru should be using -- unless the idea is to convince regular readers that some enemy of the people lied without obliging them to look at the facts, which, come to think of it, never mind.

UPDATE. In comments, trex is very good on Ponnuru's prevarication regarding the Gosnell grand jury report.

WHEN ALL YOU HAVE IS AN OBAMAHAMMER...

Aiming to build opposition, foes liken immigration to 'Obamacare' 

Pointing to its hundreds of pages of legislative minutiae, opponents of the immigration reform effort are painting the bipartisan Senate bill as the policy sibling of the Affordable Care Act, hoping that conservative distaste for the law dubbed “Obamacare” will bleed into President Barack Obama’s next attempt at legacy legislation. 

See Exhibit A: A new op-ed from bill opponent Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, titled “My view: The 'Gang of Eight' bill is an immigration version of Obamacare.”

For years to come, wingnuts will scare their children by telling them the Obamacare is coming to get them.

TODAY'S BIZARRO JESUS SPOKESPERSON.

At National Review, Wesley J. Smith clips a story out of the paper about how a smart mom foiled a child predator:

So the mother pretended to be her daughter. She played dumb in text messages, saying she was turning 12. When she was pressed to send provocative photographs of herself, she went to the Sunday newspaper, cut out a Target advertisement featuring a young girl in a bra, lopped off the head and sent along the rest of the picture. The charade worked. Bradley was arrested Friday night on eight counts of displaying obscene images to a minor and eight counts of unlawful use of a two-way communication device. He is being held at the Pinellas County Jail, with bail set at $120,000.

Cool story, bro, but why are you telling us? Smith explains:

Now, think about this story in the context of the Obama administration’s decision to allow “women of all ages” — in the parlance of the radical reproductive-rights crowd — to obtain the morning-after pill without supervision. It will be yet another way in which parents could be kept in the dark about what is happening to their own children, perhaps even when they are victims of sexual predation. Truly sickening.

Yeah, now when a minor is abused mom won't be tipped off by her pregnancy. Even worse, the girl will lose the possibility of at least getting the blessing of a rape baby out of it.

The bit about "the Obama administration’s decision to allow" when the Administration is actually complying with a court ruling is just more evidence of what happens to your brain and pen when your career is devoted to pious fraud.

THE TORTURER'S APPRENTICE.

Max Boot, a bloodthirsty imperialist who thinks the Moro Massacre was terrific, has not been able to get with the recent conservative pretense of civil libertarianism as to the Snowden leaks, and denounces Snowden in no uncertain terms as a traitor -- you know, the way all these guys used to do to anyone who revealed state secrets, back when the state was not in the care of the Kenyan Pretender.

Maybe because Boot didn't put any Obama-bad gibberish into his piece to show his heart was in the right place, his commenters at Commentary are overwhelmingly negative, and some even call Boot a liberal. Samples:

Just like the Benghazi whistle-blowers, this guy is a hero for exposing an unconstitutional NSA program. Let's hope that many more Patriots that work inside the IRS, EPA, DOJ, NSA, FBI, etc step forward and bring this tyrannical administration down! 

You lefties are ridiculous. This guy is a hero. No media outlet would listen to him. 

Obama et al. are destroying our world with their world domination. 

The civil liberties of all Americans are being sacrificed for political correctness. 

Mr. Boot confuses America with American Government, the latter being rabidly anti-American. 

You'll get little traction serving as a mouthpiece for Obama the louse, Maxie, my boy. 

Greenwald is a lefty and he's active. That's the end of that story. But I agree that giving another lefty, Dear Leader Obama, as much power as PRISM seems to have is a big mistake. Can anyone guarantee he didn't use that all computing power to beat Romney? 

"Let us not let our dislike of Obama and his administration blind us to the damage these men have done to our national security."
No, MR. I would say Let us not let our dislike of Obama and his administration blind us to the damage Obama and his administration have done to our national security. (This one's my personal favorite - Ed.) 

He is no hero if like Germany's Fuhrer, you equate Barack Hussein Obama with the United States of America. Boot clearly does equate Obama with America. Shameful! 

Here, a parable. In Chile, in 1973, a man on a white horse came riding up to the Presidential Palace, killed the Marxist living there (Salvador Allende, who was Chile's Barack Obama!) and moved in. For the next 18 years, Augusto Pinochet murdered, imprisoned, sent into exile, tortured, persecuted and in general "did away with" the Left in his country. What emerged was a democratic republic that today is the freest and least corrupt nation in Latin America. That's where we're heading---if we're lucky.

This whole thing's beginning to remind me of Lenny Bruce's "Comic at the Palladium" bit, in which an American comic, bombing terribly in a swell London venue, in desperation yells "Screw the Irish! They really gave ya a bum rap, the IRA, huh?" and the audience starts rioting. "Wait a minute," yells the comic, "that was just a joke!" "Not around here! Screw the Irish!" responds a spectator as the seats are ripped up. Similarly, these guys are so desperate at this point that they'll try anything, and it's starting to look like the yahoos they've spent years whipping into a  paranoid-delusional frenzy aren't so easy to control anymore.

NEW VOICE COLUMN UP...

...about the NSA revelations and the rightbloggers' quick change into civil libertarians. As with other conservative masquerades, the proof of the pudding will be in the legislating.

There are several amusing (well, he said self-deprecatingly, to me...) individual cases in the column, but I didn't add any by Jim Hoft because once you get started with that guy you just can't stop mocking. It's not just the clash between his former, fuck-rights-save-the-homeland ravings (2007: "No FISA- No Security... The Left blogosphere believes that allowing terrorists to communicate openly is the right thing to do") and his deep, new concern for the Fourth Amendment, nor even his credulousness toward the crazy ("NSA Whistleblower: Obama Took Down General Petraeus By Using Illegal Surveillance"); here he is claiming we were "warned" about Obama's tyranny by... Maxine Waters. Previously he had called Waters a "socialist" and described her as one of the "Rats Leaving [the] Sinking Ship" of the Obama movement -- in 2011.  The inside of his head must be like a constant light show.

YOU ALREADY HAVE ZERO PRIVACY.

If you look up "Ed Morrissey" (of Hot Air) and "surveillance" on Google, here are the first two hits you get. First, from Morrissey today on the NSA/PRISM news:

Contra the training materials, this is very much something to worry about — especially for the Obama administration... 

...This means that the NSA and FBI have access to communications of the legislative and judicial branches — at least those that go through public servers, no? Maybe Congress would like to invite Eric Holder up for another session really soon. They’d better send it by carrier pigeon...

And Morrissey from January 2009:

Hmmm. This should really enrage the Left. The FISA court will make public a ruling that validates George Bush’s warrantless surveillance on international communications, including those with one terminus in the United States... 

In the end, though, the biggest beneficiary should be George Bush. He has been unfairly castigated as some sort of fascist for using the power he already had available to track terrorist communications and keep this nation safe. Plenty of people owe him a big apology — and the New York Times and Eric Lichtblau are first in line.

FISA's word was good enough for Morrissey once upon a time. What turned him around, I wonder?

In another recent item Morrissey puts on the doe-eyes and the peace button and says, "Perhaps this will move this issue out of the partisan sphere and into a common ground in which we can all work to define exactly how far we’re willing to go in trading privacy for security." Pfffft. Morrissey, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Reynolds, Jonah Goldberg, and all those guys who were wondering what our problem was when we complained about this shit years ago will do everything they can for civil liberties now short of calling for the end of any of the legislation that makes this panopticon possible. Laura Ingraham says maybe she was hasty about the Patriot Act -- live and learn, right? -- but I expect she'll get with the Jim Sensenbrenner position, which is that the Act cannot fail, it can only be failed by unscrupulous liberals pretending to be interested in national security.

All honor and credit to Glenn Greenwald for unearthing this outrage, but frankly I assumed they were doing this already. Scott McNealy -- well, I was going to say warned, but actually he was just notifying us years ago, and since then the journalists have just been catching up. I'd like to roll it all back, and in the past I've been guardedly optimistic about left and right coming together on these issues. But since the brethren started really pushing fake scandals, I can't see anything going on in their heads except some animal drive to stir shit sufficiently that when they put another of their mooks up there to say "so much promise, to no great purpose" -- and then tell us how Kathleen Sebelius tried to kill a widdle girl -- people might buy it, and then they can start looting the treasury and taking axes to the safety net. Again.

I despair of fixing some things, but I'd like to keep them from making more of a shithole of the place than it already is.

UPDATE. Here's another good one. The Anchoress, today:

“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” ― George Orwell, 1984 

Just some stuff to think about as we digest all of this breaking news about what the government knows and when it knows it, how it gets it and where it stores it. And how ubiquitous is the case (tracking credit cards, too?).

Also, dark references to The Lives of Others and Teddy Kennedy. Compare and contrast: The Anchoress, August 2006, defending what the Wall Street Journal called "policies many American liberals oppose," including "monitoring some communications outside the context of a law known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act," torture and ethnic profiling:

Oh, wait…we’re not seeing attacks every 18 months, anymore - are we? In fact…it looks like President Bush’s terrible policies helped foil this latest attempt, despite the best efforts by the NY Times and others to cripple necessary programs... 

I keep remembering Harry Reid crowing, “we killed the Patriot Act.” 

There is a time to be a child, to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child. Then there is a time to put childish things away. If you want to disagree with policies meant to keep you safe, do it. If you want to hate a man or even a movement, do it…but do it with something that goes beyond adolescent spouting off, backed up by nothing more than “feelings,” “caring,” and hysterical, dramatic angst. Sometimes I read the drivel some of you folks write me, and I want to take you by the shoulders and shake you and say, “grow up. Grow UP!“

Looks like Thee Anch has grown right up to the Obama-is-the-Stasi stage of development. I can probably fill this week's whole column with this shit.

UPDATE 2. Here's a cowboy who thinks "GOP should lead fight against the Patriot Act," and invites us to "Imagine this scenario: three Republicans senators -- obviously, the mostly likely candidates being Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Rand Paul -- craft a bill that would repeal, or far more likely roll back certain provisions of the Patriot Act..." Sorry, if I'm going to stretch my fantasy muscles that far, I'd rather focus on Dita Von Teese.

UPDATE 3. In comments, mortimer is already doing some research for me. Thanks, citizen journamalist!

A NEW LOW.

I didn't realize that before the era of ObamaHitler, there were organ transplants enough for everyone. I guess it's true that socialism creates scarcities!

Seriously, this is the biggest load of shit yet. To the extent that any of them can get beyond Sebelius-murders-little-girl, they affect disbelief that somebody makes medical decisions about organ transplants. I don't know how they think these things should be resolved -- maybe they think we should put all the available organs in a circle and have people compete for them, as in a game of Spoons.

YOU'RE ALL WORTHLESS AND WEAK!

That report on why the GOP is fucked with the Youngs came out, and Commentary got Bethany Mandel to spin it. I gotta admit, she found a twist I couldn't have imagined.

She focuses on this bit from the report:

Despite those poor marks for Obama and the Democrats on the economy, Democrats held a 16-point advantage over the Republican Party among young voters on handling of the economy and jobs (chosen as the top issue by 37% of respondents). For those respondents who said they approved of the job Obama had been doing as president, the number one word they used? “Trying.” He was trying. Young voters were disappointed in Obama’s performance, but gave him credit for attempting to improve the situation.

I look at that and I think: Well, yeah; after the economy was blown to shit in 2008 by the rapacious capitalism that had been championed by the Republican Party since Reagan, Obama does pretty much look like a guy with a mop trying to clean up after Hurricane Sandy, and you can't help but feel for him.

Here's Mandel's take:

Millennials seem particularly susceptible to this “participation trophy” mindset, which is one indication of the extension of certain markers of childhood well into adulthood. Yet parents are far from blameless. A recent piece in Psychology Today, entitled “A Nation of Wimps,” describes just how devastating the trendy brand of parenting known as “helicopter parenting” can be for the offspring of the most well-intentioned of parents...

Honest to God -- she thinks the kids like Obama because they're afraid if they admit he's a loser wimp, they'll have to admit they're loser wimps, too, and it was all because Daddy didn't beat and belittle them enough when they were pre-teens.

The solution, of course, would be to have some tough guy ride into the 2016 Republican Convention and tell them they're worthless and weak. I hope conservatives are taking good notes, because I would love to see them try that.

The general contempt for voters they're allegedly trying to win is pretty great, too. Next they should make Todd Akin special counselor on women's affairs. Yessir, conservative reform is looking good.

ARTS NIGHT.

Saw Coriolanus (now closed) at the Shakespeare Theatre Company here in D.C. I'd seen this play twice before -- back in the 70s at the Public, with Clarence Williams III in the lead, and at Theatre for a New Audience in 2005 with Christian Camargo, on which occasion I wrote about the play and the production. (You know the story: Big tough soldier saves Rome, Rome shits on him, soldier joins Rome's enemies and threatens to destroy Rome, his mother talks him out of it and his new comrades, understandably pissed, kill him.)

The play isn't wearing well on me --though it was a rattling good production, if a little heavy on the grrr-we're-guards type of ridiculous pseudo-toughness you get when actors play war; also the final dumb-show was imbecilic, a cycle-of-violence thing out of some pacifist pageant.

The character doesn't have the depth and shadings of Shakespeare's other tragic heroes, so the critical mind usually wanders away from him and toward the play's sour view of democracy and politics, which is not even cynical, just superstitious, reflexively hostile and grim. The other kinds of human relations the play notices are either sketchy or monstrous. Menenius and Coriolanus are supposed to be practically family, but Menenius does all the work and when the fit is on him Coriolanus gives him up easily; the love-hate blood-brotherhood of Aufidius and Coriolanus is just creepy.

The relationship that usually gets all the attention is the hero's to his mother Volumnia, a sort of paragon of martial motherhood who brags that she instilled Coriolanus' blood-thirst, and we believe her because she's formidable with her family, a terror to her enemies, and galvanic to Coriolanus. (His wife Virgilia was more wan and disposable in this production than I'd seen her before.) Diane D’Aquila was wonderful in the role; patrician but ferociously energetic, the sort of person you'd expect Coriolanus to look up to.

But a funny thing happened to that relationship because of a choice Patrick Page made as Coriolanus. Page was great, by the way -- certainly not a fake soldier, but someone whom you could imagine  both in the phalanx and at the head of an army. He let on that he enjoyed the highly focused warrior life, was apparently juiced by it -- not necessarily pleased, though, and certainly not happy. But early in the play, after he has done some balls-out crazy heroism, he asked his general to free a citizen whom the army has interned, because the man had done him some kindess. Coriolanus was asked the man's name -- in the script he responds with this: "By Jupiter! forgot./I am weary; yea, my memory is tired./Have we no wine here?"

The normal reading is that he is tired, and maybe, if you can work it in, that little people don't really matter to this mighty warrior after all. But Page had a half-minute freak-out; he stopped talking; his eyes went out of focus; he punched himself several times in the head, trying to remember. His comrades, half-embarrassed, hustled him off to get his wounds dressed.

My God, I thought; he has PTSD. And through the rest of the play I saw that as an explanation for a lot of what Coriolanus did. And it really worked as an explanation, too: His joylessness, restlessness, high discomfort with crowds and intimacy -- it fell into place. It sounds like something out of a classroom bull session, so maybe we needn't call it PTSD; maybe we can just say that the thing that gnawed Coriolanus seemed understandable, and had a relationship to something I'd seen in the world. In any case Page was playing it and making it work.

It did sap some life out of the famous final meeting between Coriolanus and Volumnia, not because D'Aquila fell down on the job -- she sure didn't -- but because her ability to pull Coriolanus out of his madness, which is frankly always a hard sell, had been somewhat explained away by his condition. Of course he was going to crack if she went on long enough. It didn't matter what she did. In fact, nothing other people did mattered much to him; he was on his course, not to take Rome, nor to gain revenge, but to die and put an end to his own suffering. Maybe that wasn't Shakespeare's idea, but it was something to see, and tragic.

UPDATE. In comments Derek makes some good counter-points, this among them:

I dunno. Assigning PTSD to Coriolanus seems to me as meaningful as assigning ADD or Manic Depression or Minor Depressive Episode (Recurring) to Hamlet. They're two archetypal characters in extreme situations, both of them animated more by Shakespeare's language and imagination than by ineluctable human decision.

I may have been unclear. Certainly if you use some clinical diagnosis, or even a homey character judgement -- like Hamlet as "the tragedy of a man who could not make up his mind") -- as an explanation for the play, or even a character within the play, you're being reductive and probably evading the hard work of analysis. But it's something else, I think, when the actor brings something that knocks over your preconceptions. Now, actors have to work hard to make these supermen comprehensible to audiences -- more than Shakespeare did, certainly -- and you can't tether them too much to convention; it could be that Page and/or his director, David Muse, were excited by this idea of Coriolanus and let it throw the play out of balance. Or maybe it was my old-fashioned idea of Coriolanus' and Volumnia's relationship that was out of balance. I don't know; maybe I'll have a better idea next time I see the play. But Page's conceit certainly woke me up.

Oh, and I haven't seen the Ralph Fiennes film of it but now I really want to, thanks for the recommendations.

NEXT WEEK: MLK VS. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.

I see some of the brethren are pimping a Jeff Jacoby column asserting not only that welfare recipients are all frauds and bums, but also that if FDR were around today, boy, he'd be against welfare too:

Is this any way to help the poor? FDR didn’t think so. In his annual message to Congress in 1935, President Roosevelt warned that “continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber.” The father of the New Deal knew that “to dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of a sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of America.” 

It is a mark of how far we have declined that a political figure who dared to say such a thing today would be denounced as heartless, a hater of the poor, even a racist — as Newt Gingrich found out when he tried to make an issue of soaring food stamp rates during the presidential campaign.

Newt Gingrich, the FDR of his time!

By the way, nine years later FDR proposed a Second Bill of Rights, the theme of which was not to throw all the bums off welfare, but to guarantee every American, among other things, "the right to a useful and remunerative job.. the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation... the right of every family to a decent home; the right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health..." Maybe Jacoby heard about this, but couldn't believe it was true -- not his Newt Roosevelt!

I don't usually pay attention to Jacoby but I have to admit, anyone who can combine a Nooningtonian personalization/distortion of history and the viciousness toward the poor of a Rob Port belongs in the asshole hall of fame. (BTW, the title refers to this.)

NEW VOICE COLUMN UP...

...about the "conservative reform" conversations that were taking place in the royal box while the groundlings were yelling BENGHAZI LIES and IMPEACH. Speaking of which, the libertarians who figure prominently in these discussions -- as avatars of conservatism with the gloves off, so to speak -- also bring us this, at Reason:

Should Obama Be Impeached?
We’ve had too few impeachments in American history, not too many... 

I'm not convinced that any of President Obama's recent scandal eruptions constitute an "impeachable moment." But...

Already it's gold.

...surely something's gone wrong with our constitutional culture when opinion leaders treat the very invocation of the "I-word" as akin to screaming obscenities in a church.

Similarly, why do people talk about "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" as if it's something we can't just do right here right now? It ain't freedom till we do some waterin'! This is the kind of apocalyptic mentality you drum up when you want something x-treme to happen before anyone thinks too much about it.

SCAMDAL.

Conservatives are all rushing forward with their dollies, showing where Big Gummint gave them bad touch. Among my favorites is Stanley Kurtz.  Kurtz says he knew all along that Obama was evil, but no one would listen to him. (Can't think why not.)

"Obama’s first presidential campaign launched a series of novel and troubling assaults on its critics," Kurtz tells us; "the first incident to spur warnings" was the Obama campaign’s efforts to get an opposition campaign ad off the air. "Rather than simply answering the ad," says Kurtz, "the Obama campaign threatened economic boycotts, federal investigations of the group’s officers and anonymous donors, and criminal prosecutions."

Which is to say that the Obama people pointed out to the DOJ that the group sponsoring the attack ad, the American Issues Project, was electioneering while claiming 501(c)(4) status. In other words, it's the same terrible abuse of powers the brethren have been bitching about in the IRS "scandal" -- except Obama wasn't President yet, merely a citizen exercising his right as such to complain about tax fraud, and exercising it good and hard. The Obama people also filed a complaint with the FEC, and reminded stations that might run the ad of FCC regulations of which they might run afoul. It was hardball, but no foul, not in the big leagues Obama was playing in.

Although the ad ran locally, Fox News and CNN were apparently discouraged by these threats from accepting the ad.

Apparently! Later, Kurtz tells us how the assassins came after him: "The Obama campaign pressured WGN Radio in Chicago to bar my scheduled appearance on the Milt Rosenberg show..." Kurtz still appeared, but the call-in show received some impertinent calls -- excuse me, was "deluged with calls from Obama supporters acting on instructions from his campaign" who "demanded that I be kept off the air" (a little late for that, I should think).

And what was the game-changing truthbomb that Kurtz and other were prevented from bringing before the public with this ad and Kurtz's other media appearances, about which he and his comrades have been bitching for over four years?

It boils down the Obama-Ayers relationship to this: 

First, Ayers was in the Weather Underground. In 1971, the militant anti-government group set off a bomb in a restroom of the U-S Capitol. Ayers has never apologized.
Second, Obama and Ayers know each other from Chicago. They served together on two charity boards in the 1990s. 

The punch line from the ad is this: "Why would Barack Obama be friends with someone who bombed the Capitol and is proud of it? Do you know enough to elect Barack Obama?"

Yes, the Bill Ayers schtick, which has made a laughingstock of everyone who has touched it. It was bandied about through the 2008 campaign by internet crackpots, some of whom claimed that Ayers ghost-wrote Obama's Dreams From My Father. (They became quite hot about it, giving Ayers himself several opportunities to fuck with their heads.) The American Issues Project, Wikipedia informs me, "spent close to $3 million for the Ayers ads... provided by Harold Simmons, who previously gave $3 million to fund Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," which will give you some idea why Obama thought he ought to hit back fast and hard before the bullshit could coalesce as it did with John Kerry.

In the days since 2008, Obama the alleged terrorist pal of Ayers has, as President, droned the shit out of America's enemies to an extent that even liberals such as myself find unseemly, killed Bin Laden, kept Gitmo open, and in general behaved as about the opposite of a 60's comsymp radical the Ayers smear was meant to paint him as. But why would that matter to Kurtz? He is unreachable by any evidence that wasn't cooked up in the meth labs of the right. When Obama signed a conservative spending bill in 2011, Kurtz explained that Obama was still a socialist, but one who "moves incrementally toward radical left goals, but never owns up to his ideology." Obama could come out for a flat tax -- about the only capitulation to Republicanism he hasn't made, come to think of it -- and Kurtz would still be telling us he's a commie.

In short, Kurtz and all these people are full of shit -- so full that I expect they've all been fitted with relief valves to keep it from shooting out their noses. So let the Serious People who have been tut-tutting about the various scamdals and how bad they sound and how we must be fair-minded and explore all the evidence, etc., treat their charges seriously; apparently they have time to waste. I don't especially trust Obama, but as for these guys, I've caught their act and I don't want an encore.

THE HE-MAN WOMAN-HATERS' BOOK CLUB.

Dr. Mrs. Ole Perfesser, aka Helen Smith, has spent years coddling sad males on the internet who blame all their troubles on bitchez; she has also spent years on the internet telling us how she's a-fixin' to Go Galt in the most peculiar ways -- by refusing to tip waiters, for example, or by refusing to hire you riff-raff, etc.

Now she's brought these two great ideas together in a book, Men on Strike, about how women can't find husbands because all the menfolk are "consciously and unconsciously" on strike -- relaxing in their Galtgulch Barcoloungers, watching the game and beating off. And it serves you bitches right, because feminazis.

So far it's a big hit with exactly the crowd you'd expect. At Legal Insurrection, Leslie Eastman is pleased to learn that you can get with the Movement without expending any conscious effort whatsoever:

A few years ago, I rejected donating to a breast cancer charity in favor of one focused on prostate cancer. 

I recognized that there was a vast disparity between the funding amounts and promotion levels for the two cancers — despite the nearly equal number of deaths from each of these illnesses. Knowing men would never organize to complain, I decided to “rebel against the matriarchy” for them. 

Little did I realize I was engaging in “men’s rights” activism, as outlined in Dr. Helen Smith’s new book...

Are you the kind of person who contributes to one charity to spite another? DMOP's your gal!

Let's see, what else -- someone called Wintery Knight wants clergymen to read the book because even "conservative pastors who claim to be pro-marriage" are nonetheless "working against social conservatism even as they praise it, because they have completely discounted how feminism and socialism have impacted men in every area." I guess he hasn't thought this through; why would men leave their soiled sheets and fleshlights to hear preachers who sound like Rush Limbaugh when they can get the same thing at home via radio with having to do any faggy warshin'-up?

The Angry Dad gets right to the nub:

A reader sent this infographic about how single black women cannot find a suitable black man because they are all unemployed, fat, high-school dropouts, gay, prefering non-black women, or already have kids with another woman. And they don't even count the criminals and drug users! (Correction: They did count criminals.)

Gotta give him credit for updating, right?

These figures sound impressive, but the truth is more nearly the opposite. The typical black girl is a sex maniac at age 14, has had a couple of abortions by age 17, a couple of kids by age 20, and is morbidly obese by age 25. Furthermore, they have a tradition of unstable matriachal families, and they are undermined by bad welfare incentives for illegitimacy.

The perfect Dr. Mrs. reader! She should hire him to act the text out at bookstores -- or better yet, on the legitimate stage: This is just the hybrid we've been needing to reenergize the American theater: Dostoyevsky's Underground Man and Byron de la Beckwith.

There are others, but I'll wait until David Brooks picks up on it.