"It’s not me being out there like Jane Fonda or something. It’s different, and the approach is different. It’s just like code-switching."

"If I lived in [Los Angeles], my conversation is absolutely going to be different. But we also know you’ve got to read the room, you’ve got to know your audience and know who you’re talking to."

Said North Carolina State Rep. Diamond Staton-Williams, a Democrat, quoted in "In N.C., some Black voters are uneasy with Harris’s abortion rights focus/Democrats worry that socially conservative Black voters in the South are wary of Harris’s outspoken support for reproductive freedom" (WaPo)(free-access link).

AND: I'm also reading this Kathleen Parker column in WaPo: "Tim Walz isn’t exactly what he seems/How America’s new wonder dad has gilded his record for political gain" (free link):

"[T]he 'Lebensborn' program — meaning wellspring or fountain of life... created in 1935... provided luxurious accommodations for unwed, pregnant women."

"Part of the program’s attraction was that unwed pregnant girls could give birth in secret. In 1939, about 58 percent of the mothers-to-be who applied to the program were unwed... by 1940, that number had swelled to 70 percent. Often, the homes were converted estates decorated by Himmler himself, using the highest quality loot confiscated from Jewish homes after their owners had been killed or sent to camps. Girls who were already pregnant or willing to be impregnated by SS officers had to prove their Aryan lineage going back three generations and pass inspections that included measuring the size of their heads and the length of their teeth. Once accepted, they were pampered by nurses and staff who served them delicacies at mealtimes and provided a recreational diet rich in Nazi propaganda...."

From "A new novel tells the story of Nazi birthing farms" by Kathleen Parker (WaP).

The new novel is "Cradles of the Reich" by Jennifer Coburn.

Here's the article in the Holocaust Encyclopedia about the Lebensborn program.

I found that as I was looking for photographs showing how a place "decorated by Himmler" would look. Here's a propaganda photograph with a caption that translated into "Everything for the healthy child":

 

 

From the Holocaust Encyclopedia article:

"Where was men’s outrage while women were poisoning themselves with pills and scarring their reproductive organs with IUDs and abortions?"

"Answer: They were bystanders. Most men, other than dedicated pro-lifers, weren’t about to protest. If women were willing to terminate their pregnancies, male culture was, like, Okay, honey, whatever you want. It’s your decision. So, forgive me if the sudden rush on vasectomy clinics fails to bestir my gratitude. Too much water under my bridge, I guess, but I wonder: Are men really acting out of concern for women who might suffer without Roe v. Wade? Or is it because, as documentary filmmaker Jonathan Stack ('The Vasectomist') let slip, 'The quality of life for millions of men will be adversely affected if this (abortion) right is taken from women'?... So, step right up, you Men-Who-Love-Your-Wives: Have a vasectomy if you like.... But it does seem to me that nature’s life force is flickering a bit these days. When manning up means terminating one’s ability to reproduce — and woman’s power resides in the destruction of her unborn — you have to wonder, wherefore art we?"

Writes Kathleen Parker, in "Men want to have vasectomies now? What took them so long?" (WaPo). She's reacting to that article from a few days ago: "Men across America are getting vasectomies ‘as an act of love’/With the right to abortion under threat, men say they want to play a role in reproductive planning to support their partners" (WaPo). You may have noticed that, and you may even have noticed my failure to blog it. My reaction to the "act of love" framing was more cynical than I was in the mood to type out. So I was glad to see Parker do the work.

"What has happened to [Kamala] Harris reminds me of another — but very different — female vice-presidential pick: former Alaska governor Sarah Palin..."

"Republican influencers handpicked Palin because.... She was striking, popular and (at least to some) was a family-values exemplar.... Uncharacteristically, McCain, after meeting with Palin for just over an hour, surrendered to the argument that she could rally the troops with a wink and a pair of red heels. Why, Republicans could even claim a feminist coup. And they were right — for about 30 minutes at the 2008 Republican National Convention. Things went downhill after that.... Several years ago, I wrote about Palin that men used her the way men have always used women — as bit players on a stage set for their success and her failure. I’m afraid Harris, who by most accounts has been sidelined by the president, is beginning to get the picture."

Writes Kathleen Parker, in "Has Kamala Harris been sidelined?" (WaPo).

There are some similarities but also some differences. Sarah Palin was immensely charismatic, a vigorous presence who drew enthusiastic crowds. She needed to be reined in. Kamala Harris has never shown a glimmer of political oomph. Yes, they are both women, and I can see that Kathleen Parker wants to defend women, but part of the defense of women is the avoidance of stereotypes, and though both of these women served the interest of a presidential candidate who wanted credit for picking a female running mate, the details of what they liked about the woman — and what they, later, did not like — are very different.

TO BE FAIR: Parker does say Palin is "very different."

"Biden’s overall approval rating fell from 50 percent to 44 percent from June, also dragged down by 2-to-1 disapproval for..."

"... his handling of Afghanistan following a chaotic withdrawal. Biden’s ratings for handling the economy also have declined, from 52 percent positive in April to 45 percent in the latest survey."

WaPo reports. 

But elsewhere in WaPo, we have "Opinion: The Supreme Court rides to Biden’s rescue" by Kathleen Parker. 

That's got to be the most predictable column of the week. Yes, Biden's doing horribly, and yes, it's awful the way the Supreme Court couldn't stop that Texas abortion law, but isn't it good for Biden and the Democrats that the threat to abortion rights is suddenly powerfully grabbing the everybody's attention? 

That's my paraphrase. Here's a bit of Parker's pep talk:

President Biden’s personal hell month featured...  Hurricane Ida... Afghanistan... covid-19’s delta variant... a dragging economy... and uncontrollable fires out west.... 

The president has been bouncing all over the four Horses of the Apocalypse....

It's not "four Horses of the Apocalypse." It's Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. And I can't picture bouncing all over them. Is he supposed to be the rider of all 4 horses, like he is all 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse? I don't think the Biblical reference is properly understood here.

Back to the column:

The president has been bouncing all over the four Horses of the Apocalypse, a reluctant gladiator trying to rein in the ruin of his presidency when...

So a gladiator is bouncing on the horses, trying to rein them in? Here's a nice painting of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (by Viktor Vasnetsov, 1887):

"The American Psychiatric Association issues a warning: No psychoanalyzing Donald Trump."

That's the WaPo headline. Here's an excerpt. See if you notice what I notice:

Back in 1964, a whole bunch of psychiatrists decided they would like to psychoanalyze Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater. The result was what's known as the "Goldwater Rule."...

The American Psychiatric Association first began to follow the rule in 1973, but given recent events, it saw fit Wednesday to remind psychiatrists across the United States that the rule exists and must be followed.

"The unique atmosphere of this year’s election cycle may lead some to want to psychoanalyze the candidates," Maria A. Oquendo, president of the APA, wrote, "but to do so would not only be unethical, it would be irresponsible."

It's not clear whether Oquendo's post was a direct response to Flier's tweet or Scarborough's comments ["We’re asking ourselves — I didn’t say this, but this is what everybody is saying: Is Donald Trump a sociopath?"], but the timing certainly seems to fit. She did not respond to a request for comment....

Flier is Jeffrey Flier, the former dean of Harvard Medical School. His tweet was "Narcissistic personality disorder. Trump doesn't just have it, he defines it."

Do you know what I'm about to say? WaPo is highlighting the things people are saying about Trump, but the APA warning came out Wednesday and is more closely synchronized with attacks on Hillary Clinton. WaPo doesn't even mention the spate of analysis of Hillary Clinton that followed her "short-circuited" remark. The "timing certainly seems to fit" — if anything — a desire to protect Hillary from attacks. The analysis of Trump's mental health has been going on for a while.

And here's my post from this morning observing that discussion of Trump in terms of mental illness has unleashed a corresponding approach to attacking Hillary Clinton. I'm against this kind of cheap, phony medicalizing of political discussion, whether it's done by psychiatrists or amateurs — or WaPo columnists like Kathleen Parker who thinks her own experience with brain injury puts her in a "unique position" to talk about Trump's brain.

The viral video: "Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight."

That was originally put up on YouTube on January 29, 2016. It has nearly 7 million views. I learned about it today, reading a Kathleen Parker piece, "Hillary Clinton’s viral nightmare: A video of her ‘lying for 13 minutes,’" in WaPo:

Most of the highlights will be familiar to anyone who follows politics — her varying takes on Bosnia, health care, Wall Street, NAFTA — but the juxtaposition of these ever-shifting views is more jarring than one might expect....

On questions of honesty and trustworthiness, Clinton consistently polls low, including among Democrats, which partly explains Sanders’s support. His economic plan may be fantastical, but at least he’s honest!

Well, maybe. With Clinton, there’s no maybe, as the 13 minutes make clear. For whatever reason, she simply can’t seem to stick to the truth, which, at times, needs neither embellishment nor denial. Wasn’t it enough to have gone to Bosnia to conduct the nation’s all-important soft diplomacy?

WaPo columnist Kathleen Parker, trying her best to exemplify elitism, writes a column titled "Plato would be horrified by Trump’s rise."

Here. A commenter has an apt response:

As if Parker knows or cares anything about Plato. And as if her readers don't know and care even less. Plato was horrified by democracy itself. He thought the best form of government was one in which there's a dictator who's a philosopher. I'm supposed to care about what would horrify Plato?

I'm sure there's a Greek word for the rhetorical device of adopting the guise of someone else to deliver an opinion of one's own. It's a classic of religionists — who seem to know what God/Jesus/Muhammad thinks of what you are doing — and mothers — who've historically resorted to the terrifying news that your father wouldn't like that.

The column, by the way, was originally developed for a lecture she gave at the University of Virginia School of Law. She exhibits pride this provenance, but I can't imagine using the law school classroom to lambaste a particular political candidate.

I know that in the same-sex marriage case, Justice Scalia said "Ask the nearest hippie."

But I didn't know that on "Meet the Press," talking about the case, they'd all suddenly turn into hippies:

CHUCK TODD: Kathleen, it's interesting. You could argue that everybody's point of view was represented at the Supreme Court. Isn't that a good thing?... I mean, it's always everybody has seen, like, this is a piece of what they want representative in how they want to see the Constitution interpreted.

KATHLEEN PARKER: And that's true. And I appreciated Professor Ogletree's explanation of how this thing has evolved through the years. And you know, and I love Pete Williams' explanation of Scalia being a textualist and Roberts being an institutionalist. Those are both important perspectives to bring to any discussion we have on it, whatever the case may be. But to follow up on one of the things that Speaker Gingrich said, you know, I lost my train of thought.

CHUCK TODD: No, no, no, it's all right.

KATHLEEN PARKER: Oh no, no, I think this, I'm sorry, I did just kind of space there. That I'm still visualizing the White House bathed in rainbow colors, and I'm having a slight flashback.

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: I can't wait for the red, black, and green to come.

"So let me get this straight, we should concede that there's no such thing anymore as a private conversation..."

"... so therefore remember to 'lawyer' everything you say before you say it, and hey, speaking your mind was overrated anyway, so you won't miss it. Well, I'll miss it, I'll miss it a lot."

Having voted to legalize marijuana, Coloradans now vote to tax it.

Heavily.

Well, of course. You legalize it so you can tax it. To repurpose an old Obama-and-marijuana quote: That was the point.



Obama's appearance arrives at 0:57, after which a commenter (Howard Fineman) opines: "One of the reasons Barack Obama is so popular, especially among younger people, is that he seems so real, he seems to acknowledge the reality of things. It's kind of almost like a dog whistle kind of thing. Older people can't hear it. Younger people hear it. And that's one of the things that they hear. He seems to be willing to be honest."

I need some medical marijuana for my hearing. I'm old. I was old back in 2006 when that clip came out. Yes, I voted for him, but not because I believed he was a new kind of honest. And now, in 2013, watching that, what I hear — on the sound wavelengths that penetrate my old head — is the word "seems," screeching out of Fineman's word montage: He seems so real... he seems to acknowledge... He seems to be willing to be honest.

"Seems" and "willing."

Willing... like: Okay, I'll go along with this looking-honest bullshit for you folks for a while. So follow me, little puppies. I've got a new kind of reality kind of thing to kind of like show you. Can you, like, you know, hear it, kids?

And I got a big laugh out of Kathleen Parker, at the very end saying, "The thing people can't stand is the lies." I then rewatched the clip and lingered over the part where they showed Bill Clinton saying he "experimented" with marijuana and "didn't like it" and "didn't inhale." I found that very refreshing.

That's the kind of honesty I like right now. It was a lie, and you knew it was a lie when he told it. There was none of this feeling of oh, wow, look at the reality, man. What felt real was: There's a politician that will smile and lie straight to our faces. He's a liar.

Those were the days.

"Let’s begin with a working (and provable) premise: Women, if allowed to be fully equal to men, will bring peace to the planet."

WaPo's Kathleen Parker says, arguing that the Hillary for President message should be: "She can save the world."

Even assuming women's equality is the key to world peace, what's the big connection between a female U.S. President and the condition of women around the world? Parker notices that gap in her argument:

What does this have to do with Hillary? Quite a bit.

Rewinding the tape to 1995 at the U.N.’s Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, then-first lady Hillary Clinton empowered women as never before with just a few words: “Human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights, once and for all.”...

At the time, it was a revolutionary statement and helps explain why Hillary is one of the most recognized and revered individuals in the world.

So she read a line in a speech that was an utterly standard proposition of feminism, and she did that because she was the wife of a political leader, and... voila!... recognized and revered... therefore... ????

Female politicians "have resorted to flexing their womb-manhood."

Writes Kathleen Parker, riffing on Sarah Palin's statement that "goes something like this: 'I’m more fertile than you are.'"

(If you scroll down you'll get to the actual quote: "I say this as someone who’s kind of fertile herself." Palin was reacting to Jeb Bush's recent awkward reference to the fertility of immigrants. Parker seems to like to rewrite quotes: What Jeb said "sounds an awful lot like, 'Hotahmighty, those people can’t tie their shoes without getting pregnant.'")

It wasn't just Sarah Palin who flexed her womb-manhood to make a political argument. Parker also points to Nancy Pelosi:

"My argument that men should be saved is that, despite certain imperfections, men are fundamentally good..."

"... and are sort of pleasant to have around."

Most women still like to fall in love with them; all children want a father no matter how often we try to persuade ourselves otherwise. If we continue to impose low expectations and negative messaging on men and boys, future women won’t have much to choose from.

Even the proponents of men speak in terms of what's good for women!

"Why the 'threat' on Bob Woodward matters."

Kathleen Parker writes:

This is no tempest in a teapot but rather the leak in the dike. Drip by drip, the Obama administration has demonstrated its intolerance for dissent and its contempt for any who stray from the White House script. Yes, all administrations are sensitive to criticism, and all push back when such criticism is deemed unfair or inaccurate. But no president since Richard Nixon has demonstrated such overt contempt for the messenger. And, thanks to technological advances in social media, Obama has been able to bypass traditional watchdogs as no other president has.

Parker's trying to get past the pesky issue of whether Woodward was really threatened.

By the way... tempest in a teapot... leak in the dike.... More of the dreadful reliance on clichés from Washington writers that has been driving me crazy lately.

Here's a rule to try to follow: "Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print."

"Thinking outside the box may solve problems in the real world."

"But in the political realm, creative noodling will get you cast into the outer darkness. No matter which way you lean, The Machinery requires cogs, not cognizance."

Kathleen Parker, talking about Cory Booker.