T h a t   O t h e r   B l o g

Usually interesting, sometimes funny, infrequently read.

:: thatotherblog {at} yahoo {dot} com ::

w   e   l   c   o   m   e
a   b   s   o   r   b
the times
the post
the economist
the bbc
foreign affairs
foreign policy
new perspectives q'ly
the new republic
the american prospect
the new york observer
the atlantic
the new york review
the new yorker
the believer
the onion
s   p   e   a   k
think, discuss, embrace.
that other forum
about the forum
g   e   n   e   r   o   s   i   t   y
please help us.
make us read

but they deserve it.
the ascent school
ascent donations
e   p   i   d   e   m   i   c
there are others.
2 abes
5 corners
arts & letters daily
angry bear
johnny bardine
ted barlow
chris bertram
carl with a k
casus belli
daily kos
howard dean
dean news
brad delong
kevin drum
kieran healy
ezra klein
left leaner
jaime mulligan
noho missives
the note
the notepad
neal pollack
the poor man
rittenhouse review
andrew sullivan
talking dog
talking points memo
tnr's &c.
tom tomorrow
unlearned hand
very very happy
volokh conspriacy
matthew yglesias
a   w   a   r   e   n   e   s   s
tell another person
about that other blog.
your name:

your email:

other person's email:

any comments you have:

copy to you: 
a   r   c   h   i   v   e
s   y   n   d   i   c   a   t   e

:: Monday, August 5 ::

ON THE LAST POST: in this space we will not be obeying the improvised rules of politics. particularly, we will disregard the rule that everyone else will not discuss with equal conviction those issues which most infuriate the extreme, fundamentalist right. so far as i can tell, the thinking is that since the super-religious crazies who beat up doctors and holler at women going to get their birth-control pills are militant and will always up the demagoguery anty that it is not worth engaging. no thanks. psychos will have the case against them put plainly, morons will be ridiculed with the informal, webbish tone that is the standard of hack political commentary.

:: posted by Joe at 10:20 ::
:: ::


CONTEST WRAP-UP: chosen at random among all correct entries, the winner is: jen. she correctly points out that ms. harris is bad bad bad. for all the disgrace of november-december 2000 (physical intimidation of local election officials by party functionaries and the mass taboidizatoin of the media are two additions to jen's list), ms. harris' actions were by far the most dishonorable. mr. gore and mr. bush and their legal surrogates can be expected to make self-interested arguments with relegation to the list of history's losers at stake. even former secretaries of state jim baker and warren christopher can be given a pass for pissing away their dignity during those weeks; they and firms were paid hefty fees for managing the politics of the recount.

ms. harris took the step that triggered an eventual run on the vault of public trust. she was the first official to prove the unrelenting cynics right by hastily certifying florida election results in favor mr. bush, whose campaign she chaired. it was her failure to act with even the veneer of integrity in the first instance that put the florida supreme court and the US supreme court in position to disgrace themselves. her actions declared the by-any-means nature of the conflict that characterized moves by both sides during the see-saw that followed.

for all this, and for her beyond-shameless run for congress on her record of having "passed precedent-setting election reforms", ms. harris deserves more of our contempt than ms. owen. that is not to diminish the disgust for the hyper-conservative anti-abortion fanatic ms. owen; it is only a matter of degree.

with ms. owen, the hate must be tempered with pity and wonder because she seems to genuinely believe in her position. but she cannot be forgiven for moving the judiciary in the direction of her and the ultra-right's eventual goal of forcing women into back-alley abortions and demanding that rape victims to carry the offspring of their attacker (even if it was her brother). beyond the human rights and public health disaster of driving women's reproductive decisions underground, it's a simple matter of privacy. i wouldn't want the government regulating my body. my lack of a uteris should not entitle me to special freedom.

:: posted by Joe at 09:03 ::
:: ::


:: Sunday, August 4 ::

i vote woman I. she obviously doesn't know what the hell she is doing, or actually maybe she does.....she and Jebby boy bought the election for his big brother. they paid an outside agency 4 mil to remove any "felons" from the FL voting rolls, including anyone who had a similar name to one of said "felons." if that isn't election fraud, i don't know what is....she definitely wins.

:: posted by Jennifer at 01:40 ::
:: ::


:: Friday, August 2 ::

CONTEST OF THE WEEK: who to hate more? woman I or woman II. you make the call.

(i didn't mean for this to become the 'women i hate' place. coming soon: pro-woman exhibition.)

:: posted by Joe at 09:55 ::
:: ::


:: Thursday, August 1 ::

i haven't caught SNL in a long time, and haven't watched regularly since the simon-bathtub, lothar-hillpeople era. the 2000 debate material was spot on, but everything between those first sketches and showtime at the apollo was unbearable. anyway, this isn't about why SNL is bad, it's about that mccain is hosting this fall. will ferrell is gone, so who they'll have mccain slap around and piss on is unclear. i wonder if they'll manage to make it as surreal as my pinched-nosedly voting in a republican primary just so i could vote for him and, just as importantly, against bush.

:: posted by Joe at 22:19 ::
:: ::


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours? Listed on BlogShares