It's actually been a pretty busy news cycle, and there are a few things I'd like to get off my chest:
The Spitzer Scandal: Do I care that the governor of New York kept high-price hookers on retainer? Nope. I think prostitution should be legalized, and any relevant moral issues rest between the man and his wife, not between the man and the media.
Do I think the now-overtly partisan DOJ, acting on behalf of the GOP's Wall-Street-pirate constituency, conducted this entire investigation with the explicit purpose of nailing Spitzer, not the "prostitution ring." Of course. Duh. We're still living under the hackery of the Bush Administration.
Do I think Spitzer is a victim, and that Democrats should stand up and defend him? Nope. Listen, a guy who targets white-collar criminals who hire retinues of "security specialists" and private investigators simply ought to know better than to diddle hookers. I wish sex wasn't so shame based, but it is, and that's the reality Spitzer had to deal with. That he didn't showed pathetic judgment. Oh, and then there's the little matter of breaking the law.
So screw 'em.
The Florida/Michigan Do-Over: As far as I'm concerned, Sen. Clinton jumped the shark last week. Having failed to capitalize on her March 4 "firewall" and a week of favorable press coverage, the former first lady is right back up against basic math. She simply cannot win the nomination without what amounts to cheating.
Which brings us to Florida and Michigan, which were warned by the party not to jump ahead of the calendar, did it anyway, and had their results voided. Clinton knows she must have those nullified delegates to have a chance at "winning," and has been talking about seating those delegates ever since she "won" Florida... in a race in which no one campaigned. Hell, Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan.
Democratic chairman Howard Dean allowed last week that he would look favorably on a do-over in both states at the end of the primary season and before the convention, but he wisely left paying for that do-over up to the state parties. Well, that makes sense. But follow the bouncing hypocrisy...
A second Florida primary would cost the state Democratic party an estimated $18 million. Michigan's meaningless primary cost $10 million, and a re-vote would be even more expensive. The state parties don't want to pony up that kind of scratch.
There's a much cheaper option: Caucuses. A Michigan caucus would cost the party a relatively affordable $2 million to $4 million. So that's the obvious compromise: The state parties take up a collection and hold caucuses before the convention in August, the Democratic Party stands firm against self-interested rule-breakers, and democracy rolls on.
But Clinton cannot accept that option, because she's seen what everybody else has: Obama kicks butt in caucuses.
Her response: Send out the governors of Pennsylvania and New Jersey as surrogates to write an op-ed piece calling on the national party to pay for primaries in Michigan and Florida.
I can't believe that will happen. There's been a lot of pressure on Dean to mediate a solution to the Obama/Hillary race, and he's wisely rejected it. But his offer to allow state-funded re-votes brilliantly places Clinton in a box of her own making. She's framed the issue as one of inclusion, of the will of the voters, of fairness. In fact she is interested in exactly none of those things. She's interested solely in winning. And it shows.
Prediction? Michigan may caucus, but Florida will stand firm. Its delegates will only be seated at the convention once it's apparent that Obama has enough votes to secure the nomination.
Fallon and Iran: The President of the United States has every right to demand that senior military officers adhere to the policies and programs he sets forth. Unfortunately, the current president happens to be a disaster, and his administration's fact-free insistence on attacking Iran is the kind of insanity that puts senior officers in a terrible position.
Where you stand on this matter depends largely on whether you see the current situation as part of a continuum that extends back to George Washington or as an aberration in American history that is simply awaiting correction by the electorate in November. I see it as the latter, but still wish to uphold the tradition of the former.
In essence, Fallon's "resignation" without candid comment upholds the tradition, but passes the responsibility to the nation. Our executive branch wants to attack another sovereign nation without showing cause. We need to communicate in the strongest way possible that this would be an act of madness.
The STD Study: Everybody ran a headline this morning saying that 25 percent of America's teenage girls are carrying a sexually transmitted disease. The AP story that ran in our paper didn't even list what STDs were counted in the study, or describe the methodology, but raced ahead to frame the result as an indictment of Abstinence-Only sex education.
I think Abstinence-Only programs are flat-out stupid, but so is that AP slant. During the day I also received e-mails from the conservative news sources I track spinning the study as evidence of the crisis facing America's youth, the failure of our permissive society, etc. At least equally stupid.
My problem with all this? I don't trust those damn numbers, and to convince me of their significance you're going to have to show me some facts and methodologies.
For instance, when I think STDs, I think five categories: Syphilis, gonorrhea, HIV, genital herpes and chlamydia. But only two of those five (herpes and chlamydia) were included in the federal CDC study. The other two? Human papillomavirus (HPV) -- which may be contracted by up to 80 percent of American women at some time in their lives -- and trichomoniasis, a parasite.
Half of all Americans will contract HPV at some point in their lives, and there are associated health risks, such as a greater risk of cervical cancer. So why isn't half of the country aware that it has been infected? Why aren't we all freaking out over the HPV plague?
Because most people never develop symptoms and our immune systems simply defeat the infection. And consider this: "One study found that, during 2003–2004, at any given time, 26.8% of women aged 14 to 59 were infected with at least one type of HPV. " On the basis of that number alone we ought to be re-evaluating the shocking effect of our "1 OUT OF EVERY 4 TEEN GIRLS HAS AN STD!" headlines.
What about trichomoniasis? I've managed to live almost 45 years without even hearing about it. So what is it? Well, it appears to be just some rather common, rather disgusting short-term infection. "Women with trichomoniasis have a itching and a heavy, foul-smelling, green-white or yellowish vaginal discharge." But that's about it. You treat it and it goes away. Other times you don't treat it and it goes away.
I'm not saying this study is invalid, or junk science, or political or any of that. I'm saying that grown adults who work in the media ought to have better sense than to accept at face value a sensational statement that fails to match our experience of the world. How about a little skepticism? H0w about a more careful and measured explanation?
Prediction: Over the next week you'll see a few news organizations pushing back against the original headline, explaining that the four STDs studied aren't necessarily what you think of when someone mentions "VD." But the damage has already done. We'll be hearing this stupid "1-out-of-4" stat used in stupid contexts for years to come.
Here endeth the opinions...
Comments