Commercial du Jour

Maybe of the year. I don't watch regular TV, so I seldom have any take on ads unless they start generating news on their own. This one is:

In the context of the accusations of harassment and sexual abuse over the past few years, I guess better late than never. I will point out, though, that it took a national movement to penetrate the boardroom, which, in the case of abuse of women I find instructive: corporations have been very quick to respond to the gay community. Maybe this is why we can't have a woman president.*

The incels and right-wing nutjobs at YouTube are losing it over this one. I wonder why.

Via Joe.My.God.

* Stray thought: So many other countries have had female heads of state or heads of government -- the UK, Germany, Iceland, India, Sri Lanka, Israel, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Liberia, just off the top of my head (and I'm sure I'm missing some) -- and yet America elected a black man as president and still hasn't elected a woman. We haven't even elected a ticket that included a woman as VP. That says something.

Today's Must-Read: He Wants One Just Like It

This is getting a little out of hand -- what's with these guys who did everything they could to avoid military service all of a sudden worshiping the military?

President Trump’s vision of soldiers marching and tanks rolling down the boulevards of Washington is moving closer to reality in the Pentagon and White House, where officials say they have begun to plan a grand military parade later this year showcasing the might of America’s armed forces.

Trump has long mused publicly and privately about wanting such a parade, but a Jan. 18 meeting between Trump and top generals in the Pentagon’s tank — a room reserved for top-secret discussions — marked a tipping point, according to two officials briefed on the planning.

Surrounded by the military’s highest-ranking officials, including Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., Trump’s seemingly abstract desire for a parade was suddenly heard as a presidential directive, the officials said.

“The marching orders were: I want a parade like the one in France,” said a military official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the planning discussions are supposed to remain confidential. “This is being worked at the highest levels of the military.”

Here's where the irony meter gets a workout:

“President Trump is incredibly supportive of America’s great service members who risk their lives every day to keep our country safe,” Sanders said. “He has asked the Department of Defense to explore a celebration at which all Americans can show their appreciation.”

How about the Republicans stop cutting funding for the VA? Maybe do something to help the vets living on the street? Just a suggestion.

Now, we know he's been wanting something like this for a while, but it seems the inspiration came from France:

The inspiration for Trump’s push is last year’s Bastille Day celebration in Paris, which the president attended as a guest of French President Emmanuel Macron. Trump was awestruck by the tableau of uniformed French troops marching down Avenue des Champs-Elysees with military tanks, armored vehicles, gun trucks and carriers — complete with fighter jets flying over the Arc de Triomphe and painting the sky with streaks of blue, white and red smoke for the colors of the French flag.

Aboard Air Force One en route home from Paris in July, aides said Trump told them that he was dazzled by the French display and that he wanted one at home.

(Emphasis added.)

How very . . . what? Gotta keep up with the Joneses? The Kims? The Sadam Husseins?

We don't need to showcase the might of our military -- everyone knows we could blow them to hell and gone. This is just another display of Trump's shaky masculinity. It's of a piece with his bragging about his sexual conquests and incessant bullying of those who disagree with him. He's the type specimen for inadequacy.

Read the whole article -- it's fascinating, in a sick sort of way.

Via Joe.My.God.

Footnote: This popped up in the comments:

Today's Must-Read: Memorial Day Edition

I know, I'm a day late, but the heat had built up so much in my apartment that I literally couldn't think. At any rate, Batocchio gets it right at Hullabaloo:

Memorial Day is meant for remembering those who died in military service (a worthy commemoration). It's also a holiday that naturally spurs thoughts of civilians killed in war, of living veterans and how they're treated, and how war is discussed in our country. It's only right to pause and remember the dead. And perhaps the best way to honor them the other days of the year is by challenging the belligerati who believe that casually and aggressively endorsing war or torture somehow makes them tough or makes the nation safer.

I forget who said it, but I ran across this idea as a history student: War is the last resort, after diplomacy has failed. Too many people in this country have started to think that was is the first option. That's not how you keep the peace.

I Would Vote For Him In a Second

If you don't know who he is, where have you been hiding?

Aiding and Abetting

The Republican position, such as it is, on the administration's anti-terror efforts is nothing short of astounding. I mean, this is the party that's "strong" on national security. I would think, in that case, they'd be all for whatever works -- such as the 100% conviction rate when terrorism suspects are tried in federal courts, and the humane treatment that makes it possible for suspects' families to work with us to get the information we need.

I suspect, however, that the left blogosphere is correct: it's politics uber alles for the right.

John Aravosis quotes Jonathan Alter:

I think they're [Republicans] in a place now where they just want to hurt Obama. What they don't get - and I wish they would look into their souls a little bit - if they convey, over and over again, that the President of the United States is weak, what does that do? It emboldens the terrorists. And I don't say that lightly. Think of terrorists overseas, or at home, that might be plotting an attack - if they think that the President is weak, which he is not, he is manifestly not. He's killed twice as many of them, not to put too fine a point on it, with Predators as his predecessor did. He is not weak. But if they continue to convey that he is weak, that gives serious help to the terrorists.

I think the pressure should now be on these Republicans, aren't you helping the terrorists, by insisting, against all evidence - remember we have 100% conviction rate of terrorists in civilian courts in this country. 100%. It's not like any of them are out walking the streets, as we're told. The only detainees from Guantanamo who have been released and who have returned to terrorism in their home countries were released under President Bush. So far there has not been one case of that happening under President Obama. So, this line is a bunch of hooey, and they have to stop saying it, and the onus now has to be on them for why they're not harming us by continuing to do so.

That seems to be the consensus in the left blogosphere, and it seems from this vantage that it's correct. The Cheney policies toward terrorists or suspected terrorists -- torture, rendition, military kangaroo courts (which haven't even worked the way Cheney wanted -- it seems that even enemy combatants have rights: who knew?), holding people for years without evidence of any wrongdoing on their part -- have only served to swell the ranks of al Qaeda and its allies. It's a history of failed policies predicated on the idea that we have to fight a "war" against terrorism. We've seen how well that works: nothing like occupying a third-party nation -- one that, as far as attacks on American soil were concerned, was perfectly innocent -- to swell the ranks of al Qaeda.

It's the war mantra that, I think, is very revealing. The Europeans have been more successful at ferreting out and dealing with suspected terrorists than we have, at least until recently: they've treated terrorism as a police action, based on good intelligence and cooperation between the agencies involved. That seems to work, but working is a minor consideration, apparently: we'd rather posture and rattle sabers and huff and puff and blow the wrong house down. Doesn't matter.

So now we have an administration that is interested in actually doing something, and all the right wing can do is -- well, huff and puff. They'd rather trash the Constitution and turn this country into a trembling, weak-kneed mess, which is exactly the goal of al Qaeda and its allies.

And gods forbid someone should call them on it, as the president's counterterrorism czar, John Brennan, did:

Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda. Terrorists are not 100-feet tall. Nor do they deserve the abject fear they seek to instill. They will, however, be dismantled and destroyed, by our military, our intelligence services and our law enforcement community. And the notion that America's counterterrorism professionals and America's system of justice are unable to handle these murderous miscreants is absurd.

Brennan's attack got the expected response:

GOP Senator Kit Bond (R-MO) is calling on a senior anti-terror official in the Obama administration to resign because the anti-terror official actually stood up to the GOP and called them on their bullying.

The Democrats should grow balls like that. As far as Bond is concerned, it seems that in a chamber filled with caricatures, everyone is trying to unseat Joe Lieberman for first place.

There are layers here. The surface is painting the president as "weak" on terrorism because he has, to a certain extent, dispensed with the "conservative" policies that don't work. (Not enough of them, and not decisively enough.) That ties in with the new "populism" of the right -- war, God, apple pie, the Constitution (until we can dispense with it in favor of the Ten Commandments), all of which serves to energize the constantly shrinking base and has no other real effect. Under that, of course, is the Republican determination to block anything this administration tries to do, no matter what, because then they can point to Obama as a failure and win an election. (The problem is, they're no better at governing than the Democrats.)

And please note that they have no faith in the American system of justice. It must be hard when you start believing your own propaganda, particularly when actual events demonstrate conclusively that the propaganda is bullshit. (I've noted before that I think the right wing in this country has come down, not as "un-American," but as "anti-American" -- they don't really seem to value our institutions at all.

Speaking of balls, I suspect there's a deeper motivation behind all this posturing. I alluded to it jokingly in this post on DADT, but I think there's an underlying truth -- call it living with the discomfort of "masculinity," which in its traditional form is a pretty awful concept, and it's at least as harmful to men as it is to anyone else. It seems that many of these hawks, starting with Cheney, have never gone to war themselves, although they are really enthusiastic of putting someone else out there. I guess it gets their testosterone levels up. Frankly, I know lots of guys, gay and straight, who are perfectly comfortable with themselves and don't feel any particular need to subscribe to this bizarre idea of what's "masculine," and certainly don't need to torture or kill someone -- or have someone else do the torturing and killing -- to prove how butch they are. (And yea, by and large these are the people opposed to repeal of DADT.)

(Disclaimer, or something like it: Ironically, as I've grown older I've worried less and less about my "masculinity," and yet people are now more likely to see me as masculine. Odd how that works -- I think it's the comfort level with who I am. I'm not perfect -- I'm not as patient or kind or generous as I think I should be -- but by and large I'm happy being me, and I think that, more than anything else, makes a real man. Think about that the next time some Republican draft-dodger starts spouting off about the "war on terror.")

I guess Alter is right: the Republicans are a bunch of wusses who are giving the terrorists everything they want.

On Testosterone

This is interesting. From ABC News:

Republican men nationwide may have experienced a drop in testosterone levels the night Barack Obama was elected president, according to the results of a small study that found another link between testosterone and men's moods.

By taking multiple saliva samples from 183 young men and women on election night, researchers found that the testosterone levels of men who voted for John McCain or Robert Barr dropped sharply 40 minutes after Obama was announced the winner.

The testosterone levels of men who voted for Obama stayed the same throughout the evening. This could be significant because testosterone levels normally rise and fall throughout the day.

This I stopped me for a moment:

However, Dr. Abraham Morgentaler author of "Testosterone for Life," said research linking testosterone to moods isn't as solid as doctors would like, and the saliva test for testosterone itself isn't well studied or validated.

"What we have is an association -- it's hard to know what that means for people, did it [testosterone] go down because the men were upset and disappointed, or is it totally unrelated?" asked Morgentaler, who is also an associate clinical professor of urology at Harvard Medical School.

Morgentaler said despite the inability to prove cause and effect in the study, overall doctors are seeing more evidence that testosterone is linked to men's moods.

I detect a bit of special pleading here. There is ample evidence that hormones, particularly sex hormones, are linked to moods. Granted., to be on absolutely solid ground, experimental evidence would have to confirm that, but ask any man who's ever had testosterone injections about his reaction -- or, for that matter, any man who's been on estrogen therapy for something such as prostate cancer.

As for whether testosterone causes shifts in men's moods -- can anyone think of why it wouldn't? That seems the most logical to me -- think about the way you feel following sex as opposed to before. A lot calmer, right? Yeah, well guess what hormone levels just dropped sharply.

The interesting question is what causes the testosterone drop in a situation like this? Testosterone is manufactured quickly, but I don't know that it breaks down as quickly. Be interesting to see some guesses on that score.

And, as for the other ramifications of Republicans with drops in their testosterone levels -- well, do I need to say it?

(Thanks to John Aravosis)

Andrew Sullivan also touched on this one, and cited one of his own articles. He relates some of his own reactions to testosterone injections:

At that point I weighed around 165 pounds. I now weigh 185 pounds. My collar size went from a 15 to a 17 1/2 in a few months; my chest went from 40 to 44. My appetite in every sense of that word expanded beyond measure. Going from napping two hours a day, I now rarely sleep in the daytime and have enough energy for daily workouts and a hefty work schedule. I can squat more than 400 pounds. Depression, once a regular feature of my life, is now a distant memory. I feel better able to recover from life's curveballs, more persistent, more alive. These are the long-term effects. They are almost as striking as the short-term ones.

Because the testosterone is injected every two weeks, and it quickly leaves the bloodstream, I can actually feel its power on almost a daily basis. Within hours, and at most a day, I feel a deep surge of energy. It is less edgy than a double espresso, but just as powerful. My attention span shortens. In the two or three days after my shot, I find it harder to concentrate on writing and feel the need to exercise more. My wit is quicker, my mind faster, but my judgment is more impulsive.

It's a long essay, but it's worth reading.

I have some observations of my own, altough coming from the opposite direction: I suffered through estrogen therapy to depress testosterone levels during a recent bout of prostate cancer, which was an interesting experience. As the therapy progressed, I got a lot calmer, a lot less active,and ultimately, almost lethargic. It wasn't, on the whole, an experience I want to repeat. (Well, none of it was, and happily it looks as though I won't have to, at least not anytime soon.) And, as my therapy ended and my testosterone levels returned to normal, I found myself more energetic -- I started working out again regularly -- more alert, and a lot edgier. Back to being my usual scatterbrained, nervous wreck of a self. So, to a certain extent, I can confirm Sullivan's observations.

Men and Tears

I've seen references to this project several places, and one thing strikes me about all of them: they all seem to think it's somehow amazing that men cry. That's not precisely what I mean, but it's hard to conceptualize the reaction in clear words:

[Photographer Sam] Taylor-Wood explains, "Some of the men cried before I even finished loading the camera, but others found it really difficult. People can decide for themselves which they think are the authentic tears and which they think are fake. It's about the idea of taking these big, masculine men and showing a different side."

It's the subversion of the masculine ideal, destructive as it is, that engenders the reaction, I guess, and our apparent lack of being able to deal with that subversion. I'll readily confess that I'm subject to tears, but I tend to run close to the surface anyway, and it's not a constant: for most of my life I've been the prototypical long, cool drink of water.

It would be interesting to know how Taylor-Wood got these men to cry, or how they got themselves to do it. Music works for me, every time -- want to see me turn into Niagara Falls? Put the "Heilige Dankgesang" from Beethoven's Fifteenth String Quartet on, or Steve Perry singing "Faithfully." That'll do it. The cat died? That's good for tears, but quietly, in private, because they come before I'm ready to share my grief.

Some truly beautiful pictures in that group -- take the time to look at them, and follow the link to the 10 others he put up.

Break's over -- back to work. I may try to post a couple of them here later. Check back.

Update on Tucker Carlson

and his manly moment. From a reader at TPM:

Carlson beat up a man? A fully grown man? Please. Tucker Carlson could be beaten into submission with nothing more than a heavy thought.

Can't add to that.