Andrew Sullivan's Blog, page 95

The View From Your Window

Nashville, Tennessee, 6.59 pm

Before There Was Fox News

Helen Rittelmeyer looks back to the origins of lowbrow conservatism, surveying the “pamphleteers, satirists, and hacks” who took up Edmund Burke’s critique of the French Revolution and its defenders, like Thomas Paine, in the 1790s:

[A]nother lawyer thought that it would be better to answer Paine than to muzzle him. This was John Reeves, an ultra-monarchist barrister and journalist who in 1792 founded the Association for Preserving Liberty and Property Against Republicans and Levellers. (If only the modern Tea Party had resurrected that name.) Later, when Reeves was charged with seditious libel for having written a pamphlet so fulsomely pro-monarchy that it appeared to reduce parliament to a mere appendage, Burke wrote eloquently in his defense, claiming that while the pamphlet had probably gone beyond what was strictly orthodox, its author was guilty of nothing more than a few ill-chosen metaphors.

Within a year of the Association’s first meeting—in a tavern, the Crown and Anchor—there were more than 1,000 clubs spread throughout the kingdom, their mission to halt the spread of Jacobinical ideas among the British public.

Modern historians have focused on the Association’s more rambunctious pastimes, like burning Tom Paine in effigy and throwing the occasional radical in the local river, but far more of their effort was spent distributing loyalist literature. Reeves loved the excitement of publishing more than the practice of law, and he took great relish in reprinting suitable tracts—such as the Rev. William Paley’s unselfconsciously titled Reasons for Contentment, Addressed to the Labouring Part of the British Public—and, later, in accepting unsolicited submissions from amateur scribblers eager to help the cause. Prices were kept low partly to entice poorer buyers and partly to allow rich sympathizers to buy literature in bulk and hand it out for free. One pamphlet was listed at “Price only ONE HALFPENNY, or 3s. per Hundred to such as give them away.”

(Image of John Reeves by Thomas Hardy, 1792, via Wikimedia Commons)

The Medium Of Legalization

Michael Tesler tries to measure how “TV helped change attitudes about marijuana”:

The large increase in support for legalization over the past decade was concentrated among Americans who watch a lot of TV. After accounting for other variables, support for marijuana legalization has increased by almost 20 percentage points among individuals who watch at least four hours of TV a day (nearly one-third of the population). Meanwhile, opinions remained relatively static among Americans who do not watch much television.

One his commenters contends that the Internet played a bigger role:

On any 30 minute discussion show, there are at least five minutes of commercials, five minutes of introduction, and five minutes of the host asking questions. That leaves 15 minutes divided by 2. If you speak at 100 WPM, that gives you 750 words to tell all there is to know about the subject. Don’t refer to any books because saying the titles will only waste precious air time, and no one will remember them, anyway. If you don’t win by knockout, you lose.

On the other hand, on the internet, each point can be explained in detail, authoritative references are a click away, and anyone from anywhere can participate for free. Idiots can run their mouths with stupid prohibitionist stuff on TV and get away with it simply because there isn’t time to go through all the stupidity. On the internet, they get handed their heads.

The Numbers On Rape

Ingraham highlights how few rape cases get resolved:

In the most recent crime data released by the FBI, only 40 percent of documented rape cases ended in “clearance.” Clearance indicates that officers were able to close a case, either via an arrest, or in some cases due to victim non-compliance – this latter method is called an “exceptional” clearance. This percent of rape cases cleared has declined sharply since 1995, while clearance rates for murder and aggravated assault have held steady.

But the reality is far more troubling than these numbers suggest.

Earlier this year, law professor Corey Yung released a lengthy paper providing evidence that police departments are systematically undercounting rape in large cities across the country. His numbers, which he calls “conservative,” suggest that “an additional 796,213 to 1,145,309 forcible rapes of women have been reported to authorities, but police have hidden them from the public record, thereby feeding the myth of the ‘great decline’ in rape.”

On Monday, Amanda Hess hoped that reporting will soon improve:

Last year, the FBI finally updated the definition for the modern era. Rape is now defined as “penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” Now, the FBI hopes that the statistics will finally reflect “a long list of sex offenses that are criminal in most jurisdictions, such as offenses involving oral or anal penetration, penetration with objects, and rapes of males” that had previously been erased from the big picture. The new definition also drops the “forcible” qualifier in favor of “without the consent of the victim,” encouraging jurisdictions to report rapes perpetrated without a show of physical force.

Today, the FBI released Crime in the United States 2013, its first annual report to rely on this more inclusive definition of rape. The agency estimates that when crimes involving male victims, oral and anal rape, and sexual assaults committed with objects are included, the numbers of sex offenses reflected in the UCR program could increase by more than 40 percent. That hasn’t happened yet: Because “not all state and local agencies have been able to effect the change in their records management systems” to reflect the new terminology, the 2013 numbers actually reflect an estimated 6.3 percent decrease in rapes, as calculated by the old definition.

Dara Lind further unpacks what the definition change means:

[T]he FBI now has to consider unreported rape of men. Rape of men is a tremendous problem, especially in US prisons. Some estimates have indicated that, because of prison rapes, more men are actually raped in the US than women. But prison rape is especially likely to go unreported, and it looks like that’s a huge issue for the FBI. Among the 14 states that sent detailed reports to the FBI last year, there was one rape of a male for every 44 rapes of females. So if the FBI’s definition of rape is going to include rapes of men in practice, not just in theory, it’s going to have to figure out how to get a better handle on prison rape.

Recent Dish on rape statistics here.

Who Supports The War On ISIS?

Arabs do, according to a new regional survey:

The poll comes from the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, which asked 4,800 randomly selected people from around the Arab world about US foreign policy and ISIS. When asked “how would you evaluate the foreign policy of the United States towards the Arab region,” 73 percent of respondents answered negative or “negative to some extent.” This makes the broad support for the anti-ISIS campaign even more surprising. When asked if they supported the US-led airstrikes against ISIS, a majority in every single country said they support the campaign[.]

What’s that about? Well, the poll also asked about attitudes toward ISIS and found them to be overwhelmingly negative in most Arab countries, so supporting a war against the group follows somewhat logically. But as Beauchamp notes, that support “isn’t necessarily durable”:

At the beginning of the 2011 US-led intervention in Libya, for instance, there was a fair amount of Arab support for the campaign. By November, after the intervention ended, a plurality of Arab respondents in one poll thought toppling Qaddafi had been the wrong thing to do. It’s also possible to over-interpret these results. You might look at the Iraq numbers and assume that ISIS is losing the battle for popular opinion in Iraq — and for a group that depends on popular support to survive, that’s deadly. But it’s probably very hard to sample Sunni Iraqis in ISIS-controlled territory, who are really ISIS’s base.

Face Of The Day

Twelve-year-old white tiger Achilles strolls through his enclosure at Bratislava’s Zoo. By Joe Klamar/AFP/Getty Images.

The Two-State Dissolution?

If you haven’t already, take some time this weekend to read David Remnick’s article on Israeli President Reuven Rivlin, the shaky status of the two-state solution, and the resurgent chatter about an alternative. Remnick explores the history of the one-state idea and interviews a wide range of Israeli and Palestinian figures – from Sari Nusseibeh to Caroline Glick – on why it’s in the headlines again. No excerpt quite captures the substance of the piece in its entirety, but here’s the gist of it:

The one-state/two-state debate is highly fraught not least because of proximity. Too much history, too little land. This is not India and Pakistan; the map of Ireland is a veritable continent compared with Israel and the Palestinian territories. Gaza is about as close to Herzliya as Concord is to Hanover; the West Bank, as Israelis are quick to point out, is seven miles from Ben Gurion Airport. Any two-state solution with a chance of working would have to include federal arrangements not only about security but also about water, cell-phone coverage, sewage, and countless other details of a common infrastructure. Talk of a one-state solution, limited as it is, will never be serious if it is an attempt to mask annexation, expulsion, or population transfer, on one side, or the eradication of an existing nation, on the other. Israel exists; the Palestinian people exist. Neither is provisional. Within these territorial confines, two nationally distinct groups, who are divided by language, culture, and history, cannot live wholly apart or wholly together.

Meanwhile, escalating violence in Jerusalem and elsewhere – centered as usual on the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif – has raised fears that a third Intifada may be afoot.

The situation in the city got precarious enough last week that Israel temporarily restricted access to the holy site, leading to widespread protests and prompting an emergency meeting of Netanyahu, John Kerry, and Jordan’s King Abdullah (the restrictions were lifted today):

Jordan recalled its ambassador to Israel last Wednesday in protest at what it described as “the increasing and unprecedented Israeli escalation in the Noble Sanctuary and the repeated Israeli violations of Jerusalem,” the Jordanian state news agency reported. Netanyahu called Abdullah last Thursday, assuring him that Jordan’s special status regarding the Temple Mount and the Muslim holy places in Jerusalem, as specified in the peace agreement between the two countries, would be preserved.

Like many of Remnick’s sources, Daniel Gordis is bearish on prospects for peace at the moment, especially after the latest Gaza War:

There is simply no incentive for Israelis to compromise. What’s in it for them? they ask. Would a deal neutralize Iran’s quest for a nuclear weapon? Would it stop Islamic State? Then why move the border closer to Israel’s capital and international airport? France may soon recognize a Palestinian state, as Sweden recently has, but none of that will change life for ordinary Palestinians. Israelis and Palestinians have lost all goodwill. The Israeli administration detests Obama and believes that a renewed poisonous attitude to Jews and Israel in Europe makes European capitals anything but fair arbiters. And with the Arab street ever more radicalized, the other side is no more inclined to be accommodating.

And Mazal Mualem wonders how long Netanyahu’s popularity can last, given the state of things:

The Protective Edge campaign that lasted 50 days and undermined the personal security of Israeli citizens from the Gaza envelope to the Tel Aviv area put the veteran prime minister in a new situation. He can no longer flatter himself that there was no war during his term of office, versus Olmert, who fought two. Netanyahu is now responsible for the longest round of fighting in Gaza, a campaign that brought no clear victory and did not tilt the balance.

Netanyahu faces what is emerging as a third intifada. Soldiers and young Israelis are being murdered in central Israeli cities in stabbing and vehicular terror attacks; Jerusalem is burning while concrete blocks and police are posted in bus and train stations. The atmosphere in Arab localities within the Green Line is tense, explosive. What will Netanyahu tell Israeli citizens in the coming election campaign that will probably take place in 2015? That he defeated Hamas? That he brought security? That he “forged a secure peace”?

The Reversal Of Red And Blue States

In a new paper (pdf), Andrew Gelman scrutinizes that reversal:

We are used to our current political divides, but in many ways the political alignment of 1896 also makes economic sense, with the richer northeastern states supporting more conservative economic policies. Even in a world in which parties have static positions on issues, there is no obvious way that liberal New Yorkers, say, should vote: should they follow the 1896 pattern and support business-friendly policies that favor local industries, or should they vote as they do now and support higher taxes, which ultimately redistribute money to faraway states with more conservative values? A similar conundrum befalls a conservative Mississippian or Kansan in the other direction.

In that sense, it perhaps is plausible that, although economic issues have been and remain most important in any particular election, social issues can be the determining factor that can, over a century, reverse the electoral map.

Superhero Social Justice, Ctd

No, nothing to do with Social Justice Warriors; the Dish has covered the subject of diversity in the superhero genre since the summer. The latest: Breaking Bad director Michelle MacLaren is in top contention to direct the upcoming Wonder Woman movie. Jesse David Fox notes that “MacLaren would be the first female director in the recent history of major comic-book movies.” Homeland’s Lesli Linka Glatter and The Babadook‘s Jennifer Kent are also in contention. Sean O’Connell speculates on the challenges a female director could face with the project:

The pressure to deliver on the superhero front is being given as a reason why one female director, Lexi Alexander, says she’d never accept the Wonder Woman gig that’s currently being set up at Warner Bros. Alexander hasn’t been offered the job, even though her name is frequently attached to wish-list features (like one we ran recently) because of the work she did on the gritty, bloodthirsty Punisher: War Zone. But in an interview with Fast Company, she spells out why the pressure to deliver on the first female-driven superhero film would be too much to get her into the director’s chair:

We finally get Wonder Woman with a female director: imagine if it fails? And you have no control over marketing, over budget. So without any control, you carry the fucking weight of gender equality for both characters and women directors. No way.

Not exactly a profile in courage. O’Connell continues:

Who will fanboys blame if Wonder Woman isn’t good? If Lexi Alexander feels this way and willingly shares this concern, is it possible that other qualified contenders like Jane Goldman or Michelle MacLaren share this early concern and don’t want to step off of that ledge? I certainly hope this isn’t the case.

I’d like to believe that there are big enough ideas at play in a possible Wonder Woman movie that any director – male or female – could dial in and turn the material into a hit. Audiences are extremely receptive to superhero films, at the moment, and even “failures” like The Amazing Spider-Man 2 earn north of $700 million at the global box office. Wonder Woman seems destined to succeed, just off the curiosity factor, alone. If the studio goes ahead as planned and makes it a period piece – a la Captain America: The First Avenger – the interest level could even be higher than expected.

At the same time, any director contemplating the solo Wonder Woman movie has to deal with a handful of unknowns at the moment. They haven’t see [lead actress] Gal Gadot in action. They don’t know, fully, how the character will be introduced in Zack Snyder’s Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. And they don’t know how the movie landscape will change between now and 2017. But that isn’t about being a female director trying to get a foot in the door of the comic-book genre. That’s about being part of the mysterious process of building a Cinematic Universe… and that comes with it’s own unique forms of pressure.

Linda Holmes comments:

There’s no rule that says that a Wonder Woman movie being about a woman means it has to be directed by a woman. Down that road lies ache; down that road lies “well, then I guess Kathryn Bigelow can’t direct an Aquaman movie, nyah.” The issue is more, for me, that I’ve lost all belief that they’re anywhere close to entrusting a male superhero to a female director, so it’s either this or nothing for the indefinite future.

More Dish on the broader subject here.

What Is Native Advertising?

Copyranter, the ad critic too quirky for Buzzfeed, puts it simply enough:

And adds:

Anybody tells you different, politely get up and excuse yourself from the room, walk briskly to the elevator, and then sprint out of their building (unless the person is your boss, then just sit there and nod your head like one of those toy dogs in the back of a car).

One other explanation:

Josh Marshall makes the point that he didn’t set out to specifically execute a content marketing strategy. That push came after looking at the marketplace. It’s about something all good journalists know, what he calls “high information,” even if the ad information is plainly commercial: “Content marketing is something we fit into this concept. Content marketing is part of high information messaging, and high information ad creation.”

If you have any idea what he’s talking about, you’re, well, far more worldly and better informed than I. But it’s winning: