"...one would hope that reporters would do their homework when it comes to writing about feminist issues..."

why's that? they sure don't do their homework about anything else.

but seriously - it's not just that so many reporters are dupes that the media is in its sad state: it's that so many reporters are lazy dupes.

Posted at February 20, 2007 7:05 PM in response to Reporting feminism: Are we our own worst enemy?

Stirling-
Really, freedom of speech and all that, but I think if you talked less people might listen more. I'm not saying to shut up, I'm just saying that several thousand words in the comments section of both your posts and any tangentially about you, defending every minutiae of your conduct from monetary outlook to choice of ties is...rather exhausting for the rest of us.

Posted at November 22, 2006 8:16 PM in response to STIRLING'S SILVER

Not only was CVH the underdog, but he was going up against DLC-backed Kennedy boy (and general schmuck) Mark Shriver. Man, was I happy after that primary.

That was also the same year that - again, DLC-backed Kennedy (girl) - KKT ran one of the worst campaigns pretty much ever, and in retrospect was really the start of the implosion of the DLC. In li'l ol' Maryland!

Posted at August 20, 2006 6:35 PM in response to MD-04 In Play -- Edwards Gaining Momentum

"...a comparison between Webb's racial attitudes and Allen's racial attitudes. Which seems to me perfectly legitimate, since those are the two people vying for the election."

But we're not talking about the election. We're talking about a stupid racist remark that George Allen made.

It's not legitimate for the same reason that it wouldn't be legitimate if we were talking about some crazy-ass homophobic thing that Rick Santorum said, and you come along and say, "But Bob Casey doesn't support gay marriage!"

And - and - I can't believe I'm engaging you point for point on this, but it's not only Allen's more than interest in the confederate flag that makes him racist, it's the fact that he has a long history of doing all sorts of other racist stuff, of which this is just the latest example. That's what makes him a racist - being a racist.

Posted at August 16, 2006 10:38 PM in response to Of Monkeys and Senators

Miller really only got that bad at the very end - and by then he wasn't particularly effective. What made Breaux so bad is that he was really pretty effective as a Senator - and in the '90s, with the DLC at its zenith, that meant there were a lot of bipartisan bills named [GOP whackjob]-Breaux. He was good at it.

A big part of this is, as others have noted, the fact that Breaux is that very peculiar species of Bad Democrat, the Louisiana Democrat - not a pre-realignment holdover from the Southern Democrats, but possessed of their own unique, corrupt history. Politics is just really weird down there, though I am curious whether things will change in any substantial way in a post-Katrina Louisiana.

Posted at August 16, 2006 12:38 PM in response to Those Were The Days

"I hate to be a frequent comment troll..."

No you don't. Seriously dude, if that's what you like doing, cool, roll with it, and let people make their own determinations based on your history. Just don't pretend that you "don't like it." Nobody is forcing you to make the comments that you make.

Posted at August 16, 2006 10:48 AM in response to Of Monkeys and Senators

also, Stirling - saying stuff like "...at the very moment when the United States wants to negotiate itself out of Iraq" really doesn't help your case. Who in the United States is publicly talking about "wanting to negotiate [ourselves] out of Iraq"? Privately doing so? Anyone? Anyone with any power whatsoever? Is this just a guess, or mind-reading? I don't mean to be snarky, but really, there's absolutely no support anywhere for this assertion. The people of the United States want us the hell out of Iraq, but there's a rather enormous difference between that and what you said.

Posted at August 13, 2006 10:14 AM in response to The Fall of the Israeli Empire

Look, all of this is pretty silly, because what Stirling is talking about - academic definitions of empire - is a far different game than what's going on out in the real world. Valdron is right when he says that "Academic study and theory... is a useful tool to attempt to describe and understand reality, its not so good as a replacement for reality." I'd add a caveat - it's a useful tool for academics to attempt to describe and understand reality but please, for the love of Mike, let's try to keep things accessible in our discourse.

Empire means certain things to different people, but mostly what it means is a kind of organization of a relatively massive state that ended with and shortly after WWII and the final days of the Japanese and British Empires. That's just the truth - there are no more empires, because nobody calls themselves an empire anymore.

What we do have is states that exert influence in varying degrees and through various means over other states. Fine. Just don't call it an empire - not because it doesn't fit definitionally, but because what the word means to people is not what you want it to mean for them. Truly. Talk about empire in a modern context and most people are confused, because they're thinking about feathered helmets and guys with ridiculous moustaches.

If you mean to say that Israel subjugates people in and around its geopolitical boundaries - just say it.

Posted at August 13, 2006 10:10 AM in response to The Fall of the Israeli Empire

AlanC9 is right. Cool it a bit, Stirling, and let your essay stand or fall on its own merits - you're certainly not doing it any favors down here.

Posted at August 13, 2006 9:59 AM in response to The Fall of the Israeli Empire

um. Also they should've known about this type of threat from the foiled Ramzi Yousef plot 12 years ago.

Posted at August 11, 2006 2:08 PM in response to 9-11 Deja Vu