Shots in the Dark

Just in case you wanted to send me a card or something.

I’m looking forward to being 27…it seems like a nice year.

In fact, it is. A girl in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, noticed something unusual in her bathroom: an eight-foot python coiled up in the family toilet bowl. It sounds like a bad horror movie, I know. Kind of like like inside the White House, these days…you never know where pythons are going to turn up!

The White House wants colleges to spend an estimated $7 billion to make it easier for the government to spy on e-mail….even though the federal government has apparently never asked for a wiretap on a university’s e-mail, and, since it has the legal right to do so, could, with relative ease.

One imagines that there are other ways to spend that $7 billion which would a) make the country safer and b) avoid enormously increasing the authoritarian nature of the federal government, something Republicans used to care about, before they ran it.

Moreover, back when Bill Clinton was president, this is the kind of thing that Republicans used to call an “unfunded mandate,” an order by the federal government whose cost was simply imposed upon the states. At they time, they were justifiably upset about such mandates.

A couple days ago, I wrote that I hoped to see more headlines like the one from an Australian website, “‘Intelligent Design’ Scorned.” I even liked that they put “intelligent design” in quotation marks.

Sometimes, you really do get what you ask for…

Cornell President Condemns Teaching Intelligent Design as Science

Perhaps other Ivy League presidents should follow in the lead of Cornell president Hunter R. Rawlings IIIrd….

According to the Crimson, when one female student asked Larry Summers about the possibility of a women’s center at Harvard, Summers responded, “A women’s center is one of the last things I want to see on campus.”

As the Crimson puts it, “a spokesman for Summers declined to comment on the anecdote.” (Is that you, John Longbrake? Are we back to the Lucie McNeil days, when the president’s only spokesperson refused to allow herself to be identified?)

I’m inclined to believe this anecdote. The language sounds like Summers, and so does the opinion.

I’m equally sure that Summers could make compelling arguments to back up his conclusion.

But so much of leadership is about voice, about telling people things they don’t want to hear in a way that minimizes tension, rather than exacerbating it. (And here I disagree with conservatives who seem to think that great leadership in a college president means sticking it to women, minorities, liberals, etc., by giving them a rhetorical middle-finger and then feigning shock at their outrage.)

When Summers was in Washington, he learned that he couldn’t get away with this kind of remark because there were people more powerful than he who would make his life a living hell for it.

Now, he clearly doesn’t feel that way; no individual is powerful enough at Harvard to challenge him, particularly not a student.

The result: a gratuitously rough remark to a student who is, after all, probably 20 years old or so…..

Congress has passed a law shielding the gun industry from lawsuits arising from crimes committed by people using their products.

“It’s a historic piece of legislation,” Wayne LaPierre, the association’s chief executive, told the New York Times. LaPierre added that the bill was the most significant victory for the gun lobby since Congress rewrote the federal gun control law in 1986. “As of Oct. 20, the Second Amendment is probably in the best shape in this country that it’s been in decades.”

Without addressing the merits of this law, let me just point out that it runs contrary to the most fundamental tenet of the Republican Party: federalism. Congress has passed a law overriding the laws of every state in the entire country on a subject about which there is widespread disagreement and no clear moral impetus (as with, say, civil rights law).

And, though Republicans have long decried the power of the Supreme Court to decide the law of the land, they are now trying to stack the court with judges who will support the constitutionality of the big-government laws they are passing.

Emerson said that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. (Emerson was more full of shit, in my opinion, than a port-a-potty at Woodstock, particularly in this blatantly self-rationalizing quote, but there you are.)

If so, then Tom DeLay is a great man. But I like to think that a little ideological consistency is actually a good thing in the long run, and that serious conservatives ought to be worried about such heavy-handed measures. If they really believe that the smaller the government the better, how do they justify such measures, other than with an “ends justifies the means” argument?

Advertising exec Neil French has resigned after telling an industry audience that women in advertising don’t rise to the top because “they don’t deserve to,” thanks to the demands on them as mothers.

Defending his remarks, Mr. French told the New York Times, “A belligerent question deserves a belligerent answer. The answer is, They don’t work hard enough. It’s not a joke job. The future of the entire agency is in your hands as creative director.”

After an outraged response from some of those present, French, 61, resigned his position as creative director of the advertising conglomerate, WPP Group.

Interestingly, French’s remarks mirrored those of Larry Summers last winter, when he said that women didn’t rise to the top levels of math and science primarily because their domestic responsibilities kept them from working the necessary hours.

But that argument was overshadowed when Summers’ second argument, that women are genetically less capable at math and science than men are, caused a storm of controversy.

What’s ironic about the sensitivity to this issue is that it’s something lots of women would agree with—they do more at home than men do, and they pay a professional price for doing so.

The answer would seem to be getting men to accept at least an equal domestic burden.

But many women genuinely don’t seem to want that; many women (along with most men) genuinely seem to believe that they are—dare I say it?—genetically more inclined to bond with their kids than men are. I’ve spoken to lots of moms who say that it’s not a question of culture; their young children just have a stronger connection to them than they do with their fathers. And if you suggest that that bond is a social construct, these women can get very offended, and expound upon the connection between a child and the person who carried it for nine months inside her—an argument that makes some sense to me. How could a baby not have a stronger connection with that person than with a guy who just shows up in the delivery room?

Moreover, I’ve found that many women don’t really want a man who isn’t at least their professional equal. I know a couple of house husbands, and they all say that they sense a subtle disrespect from women they know, and they’re not particularly welcomed among, say, groups of mothers at the playground.

So, back to Summers and French. Both men are clearly on to something; they’re taking stabs at explaining an issue that affects most everyone in our society. It’s just particularly sensitive for women. Why? Because, I think, the ultimate truth of this debate is that many women want it all—quantity kid time and professional succcess—but can’t have it all, because, well, no one can really do that. There aren’t enough hours in the day.

Whereas men don’t want it all; we want to spend more time at work.

Who knows? I’m hardly an expert on this stuff. But in any case, I would propose two things: That when men try to discuss this issue, we try to do so with sensitivity, recognizing that this is, at least now, a more cutting and troublesome issue for women than it is for us.

And second, that women who believe in changing roles for their own sex are consistent and support men who try to change gender roles for themselves…..

Sports Illustrated runs this Q & A with its own reporter, Michael Bamberger, after Bamberger complained to a WPGA official about a suspected rule violation by first-time pro Michelle Wie. Things must really be hot for Bamberger, who caused Wie to be disqualified from the tournament.

I earlier argued that Bamberger was wrong to interject himself into the conduct of a golf tournament, and this interview does nothing to convince me that I’m wrong.

Here’s Bamberger’s rationale for his action, which took place on Sunday, the tournament’s last day:

Saturday night literally was sleepless for me. I didn’t want to insert myself into the story. On the other hand, as someone who loves golf and thinks playing by the rules is a critical element to making tournament golf work, I was worried about how I would feel if I said nothing. I had this scenario in my head: How would I feel on Monday when I looked at the newspaper and saw where she had finished, knowing that, in my mind, her position was not legitimate.

Let me admit that I’m skeptical of anyone, particularly any writer, who says “Saturday night literally was sleepless for me.” I’m trying to imagine a figuratively sleepness night. Is that even possible?

More important, Bamberger says he broke journalism’s rules of being a reporter, not a participant because he was worried about how he would feel.

Imagine if reporters in other sports used this rationale every time they saw a bad call. The phones of sports officials would be ringing off the hook. You know, I just had to call up about Robinson Cano being called out at first—I feel really bad about that…..

Asked his reaction when he heard that Wie was disqualified, Bamberger responds, “I felt emotionally dead. I like being in the background — that’s one reason why I’m a reporter. I knew I had influenced the outcome. But I also knew I would’ve been sick to my stomach if I had not said anything.“

Emotionally dead? Sick to his stomach? This kind of reaction might be understandable in Anderson Cooper reporting from New Orleans, but Michael, it’s just a golf tournament.

Sports Illustrated has a reporter who’s clearly too close to his material, and Michelle Wie has paid an unfair price for that. The magazine should remove Bamberger from the golf beat.

‘Intelligent Design’ scorned

That’s from an Australian website.

And we wonder why Australian universities have become more popular than American ones….maybe it’s because they don’t have to teach nonsense?

Those are the words used by Arlen Specter to describe Harriet Miers’ responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s questionnaire, as both GOP and Democratic leaders asked her to rewrite some of her answers.

Aren’t they also words that could be used to describe the entirety of this Supreme Court nomination?

If Miers really goes through with these confirmation hearings, scheduled to start November 7th, I will be Tivo-ing them religiously. It’ll be like watching a car crash in which the only person who gets hurt is an empty-headed, ill-equipped and unprepared judicial nominee.

Oh, right, and the president. And, in some way, probably the country.

Please, President Bush…do us all a favor. Put Harriet Miers out of her (and our) misery. Withdraw this nomination.