text:
Elmo puppeteer accused of underage relationship
NEW YORK (AP) — The puppeteer who performs as Elmo on "Sesame Street" is taking a leave of absence from the iconic kids' show in the wake of allegations that he had a relationship with a 16-year-old boy.
Puppeteer Kevin Clash has denied the charges, which, according to Sesame Workshop, were first made in June by the accuser, who by then was 23.
"We took the allegation very seriously and took immediate action," Sesame Workshop said in a statement issued Monday. "We met with the accuser twice and had repeated communications with him. We met with Kevin, who denied the accusation."
The organization described the relationship as "unrelated to the workplace." Its investigation found the allegation of underage conduct to be unsubstantiated. But it said Clash exercised "poor judgment" and was disciplined for violating company policy regarding Internet usage. It offered no details.
"I had a relationship with the accuser," Clash said in a statement of his own. "It was between two consenting adults and I am deeply saddened that he is trying to characterize it as something other than what it was."
Sex with a person under 17 is a felony in New York if the perpetrator is at least 21. It was unclear where the relationship took place, and there is no record of any criminal charge against Clash in the state.
Clash, the 52-year-old divorced father of a grown daughter, added, "I am a gay man. I have never been ashamed of this or tried to hide it, but felt it was a personal and private matter.
"I am taking a break from Sesame Workshop to deal with this false and defamatory allegation," he said.
Neither Clash nor Sesame Workshop indicated how long his absence might be.
"Elmo is bigger than any one person and will continue to be an integral part of 'Sesame Street' to engage, educate and inspire children around the world, as it has for 40 years," Sesame Workshop said in its statement.
"Sesame Street" is in production, but other puppeteers are prepared to fill in for Clash during his absence, according to a person close to the show who spoke on condition of anonymity because that person was not authorized to publicly discuss details about the show's production.
"Elmo will still be a part of the shows being produced," that person said.
Though usually behind the scenes as Elmo's voice and animator, Clash has become a star in his own right. In 2006, he published an autobiography, "My Life as a Furry Red Monster," and was the subject of the 2011 documentary "Being Elmo: A Puppeteer's Journey."
In addition to his marquee role as Elmo, Clash also serves as the show's senior Muppet coordinator and Muppet captain.
He has won 23 daytime Emmy awards and one prime-time Emmy.
Clash has been a puppeteer for "Sesame Street" since 1984, when he was handed the fuzzy red puppet with ping-pong-ball eyes and asked to come up with a voice for him. Clash transformed the character, which had languished as a marginal member of the Muppets family for a number of years, into a major star that rivaled Big Bird as the face of "Sesame Street."
Among children and adults alike, Elmo was quickly embraced as a frolicsome child with a high-pitched giggle and a tendency to speak of himself in the third person.
"I would love to be totally like Elmo," Clash said in a 1997 interview with The Associated Press. "He is playful and direct and positive."
Besides "Sesame Street," Elmo has made guest appearances on dozens of TV shows. He starred in the 1999 feature film "Elmo in Grouchland." And he has inspired a vast product line, notably the Tickle Me Elmo doll, which created a sales sensation with its introduction in 1996.
AP reporter Tom Hays contributed to this report.


text:
Friday, August 14, 2009
Shades of Pink in Southeast Asia
46 comments :
- Selba said...
Lovely pictures, thanks for sharing them, Mary.
Looking from the clothes, those pictures are taken in Chiang Mai or in North of Thailand, right?
I'm always crazy about Thailand :) - August 13, 2009 at 11:53 PM
- Unknown said...
A pink treat. Thankyou!
- August 14, 2009 at 12:40 AM
- Mary Bergfeld said...
Selba, most of the pictures are from or outside Chiang Mai. There are a few from Cambodia.
- August 14, 2009 at 2:12 AM
- petite nyonya said...
Really nice of you to share the pictures with your readers. SEA or Asia at large is bountiful of colors, culture & languages.
- August 14, 2009 at 3:04 AM
- Deb in Hawaii said...
Beautiful pictures!
- August 14, 2009 at 4:05 AM
- My Little Space said...
Those pictures were taken by you, Mary??? How lovely! So, you been to Chiang Mai! Did you bought the sweet leaves and other detoxification herbal?
- August 14, 2009 at 4:58 AM
- Donna-FFW said...
Lovely pictures, Mary. I always enjoy your photos from other countries. Enlightening and very interesting.
- August 14, 2009 at 7:29 AM
- Katy ~ said...
Your pictures caught me up in the moment with you. These are a terrific share. What an eye you have!
- August 14, 2009 at 7:43 AM
- Hootin Anni said...
Wow Mary...all such wonderful photo shares!!! I especially like the #7...the close up of those two. Such beauty.
You did one super post here for your PINKS! - August 14, 2009 at 9:17 AM
- Farmer Jo said...
Chiang Mai was my favorite city too! Love the pinks and all the photos! You must have taken an amazing trip. Are these all from one trip, or multiple?
Do you have any idea what the name of those long bumpy beans are? We saw them all over the market, but we never figured out a name for them. - August 14, 2009 at 10:52 AM
- Lyndas recipe box said...
I always love your photos, Mary...thanks for sharing other parts of the world with us!
- August 14, 2009 at 11:12 AM
Thank you to share your pinkies with us and make us dream of this beautiful part of the world. Happy Pink Saturday.
- August 14, 2009 at 12:09 PM
- Mary Bergfeld said...
MLS,Bob and I took these pictures when we were in Southeast Asia at the beginning of the year.
- August 14, 2009 at 2:01 PM
- Mary Bergfeld said...
Farmer Jo, the greens you asked about are unripend tamarind pods. They are plentiful in Thailand. The pictures are from one extended tour of Asia.
- August 14, 2009 at 2:04 PM
- Schnitzel and the Trout said...
Fantastic photography. I am looking forward to investing in a better camera.
- August 14, 2009 at 3:26 PM
- Country Wings in Phoenix said...
Oh Mary honey!
Absolutely beautiful. Just beautiful. Thanks so much for sharing this beautiful Pink Saturday post. I love the dancer at the end. She looks so elegant and is just talking with her beautiful hands in dance. Stop by and say hi. I love it when you visit. Country Hugs, Sherry - August 15, 2009 at 12:57 AM
- Drawn to The Sea said...
The best thing about this post? The beautiful faces.
Happy Pink Saturday :-)
~Julia @ Drawn to the Sea - August 15, 2009 at 2:48 AM
- Beverly said...
Mary, this is such a wonderful post. I have been fascinated by Thailand since I was a child. It is one of the top places I want to visit. The people and culture are so deep and rich.
Thank you for letting me know about the link. It is correct now. I signed on as one of your followers, too.
Happy Pink Saturday. - August 15, 2009 at 5:45 AM
- ThingsinPink said...
gorgeous photos! happy pink saturday!
- August 15, 2009 at 10:03 AM
- Claudia said...
What a wonderful post - I love the gorgeous photos. Thank you for taking me to a very different place for Pink Saturday!
- August 15, 2009 at 12:02 PM
- Jillian's Bella Rosa Antiques said...
Pretty pinks! I especially love the pink of the pretty dancing girl's outfit.
- August 15, 2009 at 12:35 PM
- noble pig said...
Wow, happy pink to you too!
- August 15, 2009 at 12:41 PM
- CC said...
What wonderful pictures. They're just gorgeous..thank you for sharing them with us. Happy Pink Saturday..have a wonderful weekend.
- August 15, 2009 at 1:00 PM
- NKP said...
What glorious colours!
- August 15, 2009 at 1:08 PM
- Puna said...
Mary this is wonderful! It so remind me of home.
- August 15, 2009 at 1:40 PM
- ~*~Magpie's Nest said...
So many lovely pink photos!!! It's like taking a little trip = Love it!
~*Happy Pink Saturday*~ - August 15, 2009 at 2:41 PM
- ♥Mimi♥ said...
What a sweet Pink Saturday blog post! Sadly, every Saturday for the past few weeks it has been raining in northern Michigan. So, this day always brings a little sunshine my way. Thanks so much for the treat!
♥Wishing you and yours a wonderful weekend♥ - August 15, 2009 at 2:50 PM
- Unknown said...
Happy PS, Mary! Your photos are so incredible! Love all the pinks and the beautiful cultural costumes!
Have a lovely week!
Tina - August 15, 2009 at 5:53 PM
- LADY JANE said...
?What a neat post for pink saturday...so very neat of a share...thanks for the mini trip today! I love it!!!!!!
- August 15, 2009 at 7:32 PM
- Susie Jefferson said...
Wow, fabulous photos! I'm afraid I buy recipe books for the pictures, not the recipes. You really are an excellent photographer, and I'll be back to have a really good look at your site.
Thanks so much for visiting me and leaving a comment, so glad you found the blog hints helpful.
Happy Pink Saturday! - August 15, 2009 at 7:38 PM
- Neabear said...
What a wonderful Pink Saturday post! I love all the pinks you found in unexpected places. Thank you so much for visiting me too!
Hope you had a Happy Pink Saturday! - August 15, 2009 at 8:27 PM
- Gabriela said...
Happy Pink Saturday!
Love this post!
~ Gabriela ~ - August 15, 2009 at 9:35 PM
- Tara said...
I love seeing these pictures from another culture. Everything was beautiful. Happy Pink and have a wonderful Sunday!
- August 15, 2009 at 11:15 PM
- Michelle said...
Mary-awesome post. Happy PS. If I was asked who I could have dinner with, you would one of them, your pork recipe looks great. Or maybe I should say who I would like to cook for me. LOL
- August 16, 2009 at 12:15 AM
Lots of random pink pictures - I like it :-) Love the (ye) closed white and pink flowers, the children with their pinks, and that dancer. Thailand? Malaysia? Is my geography so bad? :-)
Happy Pink Saturday!
Li - August 16, 2009 at 2:25 AM
- Catharina Maria said...
These are beautiful !
Love from the Netherlands - August 16, 2009 at 4:00 AM
- Elena said...
You've put together a clever post too Mary .... I don't think I would have thought of putting together a collection of photos like this. Each picture tells a story - it's fabulous.
I've enjoyed your post.
Thank you for visiting :)
ciao for now,
Elena :) - August 16, 2009 at 7:34 AM
- Bunny said...
Beautiful pinks, gorgeous people. Happy PS
- August 16, 2009 at 8:08 AM
- Dru said...
What a beautiful pink post - I just love all the pictures and I'm going to give your recipe for Thai Lemon Grass pork a try - looks wonderful. Thank you so much for sharing with us. Happy Pink Saturday!
- August 16, 2009 at 10:01 AM
- Dana and Daisy said...
exotic! pink lives everywhere!
aren't you glad?
Reading your post above with a substitute for lemongrass, I have an ornamental grass in my garden that smells like lemongrass, it is short, about 6 inches tall and is a light yellowy green color and very spiky leaves. I wonder if it is lemongrass?
I'll be back for more of your culinary delights!
p.s. the cupcakes were good, emphasis on past tense! he he!
Love, Dana and Daisy - August 16, 2009 at 11:24 AM
- Creations from my heart said...
Thanks for visiting on Pink Saturday. Your photos are beautiful. In response to if the paint kills the flowers...The flowering part of the astilbe is more of a grass/straw so it will dry out and turn brown. I just paint it before it totally is dried out! Blesssing...Sherry
- August 16, 2009 at 11:47 AM
- Terri said...
Great photos. Hope you had a great Pink Saturday.
- August 16, 2009 at 12:05 PM
- Vicki said...
Hello, Mary,
I enjoyed all of your pretty pinks. The flowers we so lovely and such a beautiful shade of pink. I loved seeing all the beautiful children wearing their pink. Thanks for stopping by Bunny Cottage. Come back every chance you get. Have a blessed Sunday. Vicki - August 16, 2009 at 12:32 PM
- Hélène Flont , french illustrator said...
Bonjour Mary!!!! It promises pink exotic new surroundings . Bravo, c'est magnifique!!!! Happy PS. Helen
- August 16, 2009 at 2:00 PM
- tracy said...
What beautiful pictures for pink saturday.I was mezmorized.
Happy belated Pink Saturday
Iam leaving for Wales soon,I'll bring back some of Welsh recipes.
Gracie - August 17, 2009 at 6:52 PM
- Lori said...
What beautiful pictures Mary. I love to look at people. The colors are so vibrant and the people beautiful.
- August 20, 2009 at 7:16 PM

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Balkinization   |
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts Old and Washed Up
Wednesday, November 07, 2012
Old and Washed Up Gerard N. Magliocca
Don Rickles used to say this to mock celebrities, and it applies rather well to the Reagan coalition. The results from yesterday are further evidence that the 2008 election was a realignment. Simply put, there are not enough fiscal, social, and national security conservatives left to create a majority. Moreover, the end of George Bush's presidency did lasting damage to the Republican Party.
Regarding Gerard's comment on Citizens United, here is my comment earlier today at Sandy's most recent posting on the October Surprise:
***** Here's a thought to consider: Perhaps Obama can give the SCOTUS majority in Citizens United (5-4) a tip of the hat for his second-term win. Combining Buckley with Citizens United made for a lot of noise in the form of "free" speech funded to a great extent by billionaires, many of whom did not want their names disclosed, with Super Pacs. Stephen Colbert can be credited with putting the spotlight on Super Pacs with his spoofs of Super Pacs, including his own. Colbert's youthful audience is expanded via the Internet to geezers like me who are too cheap to pay for cable and who can't stay awake at the late hour of the program. Young people voted strongly for Obama and apparently avoided the noise of the Super Pacs. So perhaps there is a law of diminishing returns that applies to the excessive noise resulting from Buckley's money is speech to Citizens United's corporations are people. Instead of reversing Buckley and Citizens United, perhaps the better course would be to require full disclosure of contributors (and the form of their contributions), so that voters can follow the money. With my tax background, I have been suspicious of the funding of Super Pacs. Presumably such funding would be with after tax dollars. Deductions (for income tax purposes) are not allowed for political contributions. Disclosure of the contributors and the amounts they contribute (whether in cash or in property) could provide valuable information in determining whether tax laws are being complied with. My experience in 50 + years of practicing law makes me suspicious that astute wealthy businessmen are using after tax dollars for their Super Pac contributions. Many billionaires have much of their wealth in highly appreciated securities. While gifts of such securities to a charity may result in a charitable deduction based upon fair market value, they do not result in the recognition of income to the contributor; rather, the charity sells the appreciated securities and because it is tax-exempt, it does not recognize income on the sale of such securities. So a tip of the hat to the SCOTUS majority in Citizens United, and a wag of the finger to Congress to tighten Super Pac disclosure laws; that way we can make a better tomorrow today. [Sorry, Stephen] ****** Perhaps my comment may help prime the pump that Gerard set up.
Ask Prop. 37 folks if Monsanto money didn't buy anything.
Ask Prop. 29 folks if Philip Morris money didn't buy anything. Ask Measure Q folks if Pepsi money didn't buy anything. Three recent examples from California. Money sure as hell bought outcomes, drowned out speech. It was spent for no other reason. It worked. The only reason the Super PAC money didn't do decide more outcomes was when Super PAC money on both sides.
I disagreed with Prof. Balkin that Obama would become a transformative president. Now I disagree with Prof. Magliocca that he already is one.
For the sake of the discussion, I'm going to assume that the previous transformative presidents were Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, and Reagan. As I see it, the transformative presidents share the following in common: 1. They establish a new electoral coalition. 2. They sometimes confirm or initiate major social changes (Jackson, Lincoln, FDR), but not always (Jefferson and Reagan simply tried to freeze the social status quo). 3. They initiated major economic changes. 4. They won a blow out election in their second term (1804, 1832, 1864, 1936, 1984), and their coalition went on to sustained electoral success. Now let's see how Obama fares. On No. 1, I think he qualifies. The white republic is gone forever. Obama's diverse coalition is the near term future. The very nature of Obama's coalition means that he meets No. 2 as well. Category 3, though, is a showstopper. Obama operates within the existing neo-liberal economic consensus. No change there at all. Just as obviously, Obama's win yesterday isn't anywhere near the magnitude of the victories achieved by the recognized transformative presidents. It was a good victory, no doubt, but not the definitive judgment the others got. Part of this can be explained by the fact that Obama is black. He probably lost 2-3% of the nationwide popular vote due to simple racism. Even if we gave him those votes, however, he'd still fall short. And this brings me back to issue 3. Because Obama was so cautious, so tepid in the ARRA and Dodd-Frank, he failed to create the economic recovery necessary to sustain a blowout win. That affects not only how he's perceived now, but potentially the long-term impact of his other policies.
As jpk notes, certain local races (House races too) offer some evidence of CU effects.
The fact that the end result went Obama's way doesn't really to me suggest it had no egregious effects on the national race either. I was somewhat in the minority on my side on the validity of CU & think some of the concerns are excessive, but would not go too far the other way either.
I think it's amusingly oblivious to state that a President who won election and reelection with 98% of his own race's vote lost votes due to racism. Requires a seriously tendentious definition of racism to make that claim work.
The truth of the matter is that Obama's race has actually benefited him; Aside from getting an insane percentage of the black vote, it has served to permit his defenders to accuse anyone who opposes the President of racism. A tactic no white President could ever employ. The President is a master politician, of that there is no doubt. A pity that he so clearly demonstrates the disconnect between skill at running for office, and skill at performing that office. The nation will survive, I suppose, even 8 years of Obama.
President who won election and reelection with 98% of his own race's vote lost votes due to racism. Requires a seriously tendentious definition of racism to make that claim work.
The NYT exit poll noted the number was 93% nationally but why is it so hard to understand how getting most of the votes of 13% of the population, who are disproportionate present in certain states, would make it possible to lose votes, particularly in certain areas, from 78.1% of the population? The truth of the matter is that Obama's race has actually benefited him in certain respects, probably Aside from getting an insane percentage of the black vote As compared from the 71% of the Hispanics and 72% of Asians? The votes are of a thin portion of the electorate often in states that generally lean blue anyway. it has served to permit his defenders to accuse anyone who opposes the President of racism. A tactic no white President could ever employ. Not "anyone" -- people who for various reasons very well credibly can be so labeled. White Presidents would meanwhile not have to deal with some of the b.s. he has to deal with. I'm far from sure this amounts to even a wash in such areas. A pity that he so clearly demonstrates the disconnect between skill at running for office, and skill at performing that office. The electorate disagrees with you as does his actual record. The nation will survive, I suppose, even 8 years of Obama. Yes, advances in health care, gay rights, sanity and so forth is something we can survive, given we survived a Civil War, Great Depression and slavery etc. Somehow, we shall survive this too.
Brett once again demonstrates that he is the basest of the Republican right-wing base. Fortunately for Democrats, the demographics for Brett and his ilk are negative. Maybe Brett and the other angry white men need to procreate rather than procrastinate.
Shag, 93, 98, (Early reports differed.) the point is, suppose that Romney had gotten a mere 90% of the white vote.
Would you be dismissing claims it demonstrated racism? Every last black I know voted for Obama, and most of them make no bones of the fact that his race played a part in the decision. If the situation were reversed, my ears would be ringing from the cries of "Racist!". The double standard has me more than a little irate. It is time, and long since, that minorities stopped getting a pass for behavior that would get nothing but contempt if whites exhibited it. And I care not a bit what you consider "base". I ask only one thing of the GOP in the future: That the party stop letting Democrats define what it is exceptable for Republicans to talk about in a campaign. It's time for the race card to be declined.
Brett has a short term memory problem with this:
"The nation will survive, I suppose, even 8 years of Obama." apparently having conveniently forgotten the eight (8) years of Bush/Cheney that the nation survived, but barely, leaving the nation and Obama in a deep, deep hole to climb out of. When I was a kid and would complain to my mother about not quickly recovering from a cold or other illness, she would calm me by saying "It takes 40 days to get sick and 40 days to get better." I later learned this was an old country saying based upon the Bible and the great flood of Noah's times. Patience, Brett. With Obama, we have started to climb out of that hole despite the GOP efforts to thwart Obama from day one of his first term. Brett reminds us that the Civil War ended about 150 years ago, ignoring the remnants of slavery that continue to this day with racial issues. But Bush/Cheney's 2008 Great Recession dumped on American was only four (4) years ago and Brett conveniently brushes that aside.in assessing Obama's efforts, despite GOP resistance, to overcome the Bush/Cheney failures of eight (8) long years. Brett's perspective remains looking through the wrong end of a telescope.
Maybe, for perspective, Brett can quantify:
"Every last black I know voted for Obama, ...." Are they some of his best friends?
Would you be dismissing claims it demonstrated racism?
Over 70% of Asians and Hispanics voted for Obama w/o as high of the baggage of one side to deal with. Does this "demonstrate racism"? Well, it might ... but not quite the way you suggest. If the situation were reversed, my ears would be ringing from the cries of "Racist!". Blacks vote in high numbers for Dems, as they used to for Republicans, for a reason. They vote comparable numbers when whites run for President. If a woman ran, many women in part will note that is a reason they voted for the candidate. Yes, "race had something to do with it" -- the Republican Party for years has done things that harmed blacks, leading many conservative leaning blacks to vote the other way comparable to whites voting for Republicans on abortion or whatnot even if their economic interests go the other way. You can pretend it's all a figment of their imagination or is "racist" but the facts say differently. It is time, and long since, that minorities stopped getting a pass for behavior that would get nothing but contempt if whites exhibited it. Voting for the candidate that protects voting rights after they fought for generations? Against the party where something like 1 in 5 (or whatever) think he's from Kenya? Again, contempt, but not the way you say. And I care not a bit what you consider "base". I know someone who compares affirmative action to the KKK beating up people doesn't care what I think, yes, but I'm trying here to submit a bit of a competing perspective. I ask only one thing of the GOP in the future: That the party stop letting Democrats define what it is exceptable for Republicans to talk about in a campaign. Each party tries to so define in some fashion. Yet again, "libertarian" Brett is one-sided against Dems or the "left" or whatever, now and then deigning to make a nod toward the ills of the Republican. It's time for the race card to be declined. Yes, Republican Party, heal thyself.
I'm sorry the discussion has gotten so off topic, because I think the post raises an interesting question. Since it is, though...
Latinos in CO voted 87-10 for Obama. It would be hard to explain that as "racial solidarity" for Obama, but pretty easy as a reaction to the institutional racism of the Republican base. Speaking as a liberal, I'm more than happy for that base to continue to insist that brown people are at fault for this.
Obama did not take an "insane" percentage of the black vote. Joe Biden would have pulled about 90% of the black vote if he had been the candidate. The Democrat usually does. A slight bump for one of your own, however, is natural. (In my state, Italians run about 60-40 Republican, but not when there's an Italian Democrat running against a non-Italian Republican, where it comes out around 50-50.) A big change from normal partisan patterns is what indicates racist voting, so, yes, a 90% white vote for Romney would indicate racism.
I think 80-85% of Mormons voted for Romney, were they being bigoted to do so?
"That the party stop letting Democrats define what it is exceptable for Republicans to talk about in a campaign." Brett, do you honestly think the GOP lost because they were not strident enough? This kind of thinking is really hurting the GOP. The same things that delight its base turn off the rest of the nation.
I ask only one thing of the GOP in the future: That the party stop letting Democrats define what it is exceptable for Republicans to talk about in a campaign.
# posted by Brett : 7:16 AM Brett, I think most Dems would be happy for you to make as many racist rants as you want. The Dems aren't stopping you, or defining you, they're just making sure that everyone hears you.
As to the post, I'm somewhat against defining Obama's place in the history of presidents before he actually completes his first term. I think Mark Field's comments have been interesting on this matter, but I'm inclined to think "too soon."
Anyway, the NYT praised "Lincoln" as a faithful representation of politics in action. I would have to wait but since he's one of the transformative presidents, seemed somewhat germane.
One other thought about the election. I think the critics of Citizens United should admit that their doomsday predictions about what the decision would mean for substantive political outcomes were wrong. Tons of money were spent to little effect. Little effect? This is the first successful scorched earth national campaign for president. Although the final vote tally is still being made, it appears that the months long media mud throwing contest substantially reduced voter turnout from the last election. Barack Obama lost a couple million votes off his 2008 pace, which in a normal election would have doomed him to defeat. However, Romney lost enough votes off the McCain 2008 pace to lose the swing states by a roughly combined 150,000 votes. Obama won reelection by being better than Romney at making voters so sick of the political process that they stayed home. Reelection by attrition, not acclamation. This is not the stuff of transformative presidents, but rather a dysfunctional political system. Which gets us to to your opening point claiming there are not enough fiscal, social, and national security conservatives left to create a majority. Sure there are. However, you cannot constitute an electoral majority unless you vote in elections. Romney brought in fewer Republicans than did McCain, who brought in fewer Republicans than Bush. These folks did not die or decide to become progressives, they stayed home out of disgust. While Team Obama's dumping mud by the super tanker full did not help Romney, perhaps the GOP might want to consider running an actual conservative candidate to bring conservative voters to the polls, rather than yet another establishment Republican playing a conservative on TV. Marco Rubio 2016?
Do you think voters were turned off by Romney's 'moderation' and his campaigns and aligned SuperPacs 'mild' attacks on Obama such that if only he had veered more to the right and the PACs had attacked more stridently the GOP would have won? This is getting delusional.
Mr. W:
Bart, Do you think voters were turned off by Romney's 'moderation' Romney had a long and infamous history of RINO governance and he worked diligently since 2007 in an attempt to convince Republicans and Independents that he was a born again Reagan conservative. It only partially took. It appears he did not convince enough people of his sincerity. The Tea Party has been RINO hunting since 2009 and replaced politicians like Romney across the country. Romney won a plurality nomination when the libertarians and conservatives split their votes. He needed to get all the libertarians and conservatives who voted against him in the primaries to vote for him in the general. They didn't It did not help that the RNC started a floor fight with the Ron Paul supporters in an attempt to crush any dissent. I strongly suspect that a large number of Paul folks decided to stay home. Also, the Tea Party movement is in substantial part small business and working class, very populist and are hardly fans of Wall Street or big business. Portraying Romney as a "vulture capitalist" who enjoys firing people was more effective than I anticipated. ...and his campaigns and aligned SuperPacs 'mild' attacks on Obama such that if only he had veered more to the right and the PACs had attacked more stridently the GOP would have won? Not at all. The GOP mud slingers were doing their worst. However, if your objective is to get people to the polls rather than supressing the vote, a candidate has to offer a positive alternative. Ronald Reagan's victory in 1980 has as much or more to do with him offering a positive and comprehensive alternative vision of governance than it had to do with Carter's bad governance. Romney failed to do so.
Blankshot, you wrote a book trying to smear Obama as a socialist. You're not really in a position to be crying about mud throwing.
I agree that Romney was a poor candidate in many ways (a plutocrat who had flipped positions quite a bit, interestingly Obama ran much more on the former angle), but he said everything conservatives could want to hear and more and was embraced by much of the Tea Party. Besides, he was running against an avowed un-American Marxist ruining the nation in the eyes of movement conservatives: I sincerely doubt any of these people stayed home. I agree the fight with the Paul supporters was a foolish self inflicted wound for the GOP. Regarding mud slinging, while there was plenty on both sides I would wager the GOP did more. While Obama outspent the Romney campaign by quite a bit the SuperPacs spent for Romney by a lot, and Superpac ads are nearly all negative. It seems to me that what did Romney in was not the gender gap (he actually won white women more than McCain did) but his very poor showing with minorities (especially Hispanics). If you remember I admonished you for underestimating Hispanic turn out for Obama. The good news for the GOP I should think is that the only real position they likely have to give up to cut into Hispanic votes is their immigration stance and rhetoric (and yes, a Rubio on the ticket should help). Abortion did not seem to harm them much (well, it did in those two Senate races in Missouri and Indiana, the GOP must make exceptions for rape and incest if it is to have any political future).
Mr. W:
Minority votes did not go up, they went down, but did not go down as far as white votes. White votes went down by over 11 million compared with 2008. These folks did not disappear in the rapture, they stayed home. If these folks showed up on election day and broke GOP like they usually do, we have a new president.
What I said at the time and meant above was that in your models you were underestimating Hispanics as a share of the electorate, and how much they would break toward Obama.
To get back to Brett's off-topic, take a peek at Timothy Egan's NYTimes column today "The Great Experiment." If Brett reads the column, he will surely get angrier, but if he really understands its message, perhaps even he may get the message. Brett isn't mentioned by name in Egan's column, but regulars at this Blog will recognize Brett in it.
Back on the "Old and Washed Up" topic, take a peek at Ann Telnaes' animation today at the WaPo with the setting of a GOP Happy Hour of "Old and Washed Up" Republicans with background music - "Nobody Knows, the Troubles I've Seen" - as the animation scrolls (to the right, of course), ending with a bird dropping a turd on the pate of Karl Rove (aka Turd Blossom). I've got a feeling that turd dropping will not blossom.
Let's remember that the issue of unlimited corporate expenditures is not merely the distorting effect on discourse -- which, I agree, at least deserves a rethink after these results (though by no means do I think it's obvious that there is no such effect) -- but also that such expenditures, despite their purported "independence," represent an avenue for corporations to purchase influence over the candidates, in much the same way as direct campaign contributions. That danger has by no means been disproven by this election.
I agree with the last comment as to the influence (if it is constitutional to deal with that as some wish, not same question).
HOW Obama governs, e.g., is affected by how he deals with the powers that be, including those who played an important role in his election. Some think his monetary reforms were too conservative. The role of big money in this is not that hard to imagine.
Well said.
Buying influence, ultimately buying law that favors the interests of the big money that's doing the buying, is a problem that hardly goes away with some bad purchase decisions. Probably more bullets miss the target than hit it. That doesn't mean that guns have no effect.
"- but also that such expenditures, despite their purported "independence," represent an avenue for corporations to purchase influence over the candidates, in much the same way as direct campaign contributions."
The problem is, this is equally true of the spending of corporations like MSNBC or CNN. Whose "news coverage" is often just a scarcely disguised "in kind" contribution to the candidates they favor. You can't preserve anything like freedom of the press if you attempt to regulate these corporations' in kind contributions, but once you've decided you're not going to regulate them, there's no principled basis for saying that a corporation that owns a printing press gets a pass on regulation, but a corporation that rents one gets it's corporate speech regulated. I believe that the best approach is to recognize that, while there might be arguments for regulating this speech, the conflict of interest involved in incumbent officeholders getting to regulate political speech is mind boggling. It renders any putative advantage of the regulation trivial by comparison.
Brett seems to leave open popular initiatives as a way to regulate the field.
Of course, "regulate" includes things like disclosure laws, but as with Heller, Brett probably thinks Citizens United is woefully statist. The owns/rents thing also suggests a difference. I am sympathetic to the Eugene Volokh "press" as a means not just an institution argument, but permanent ownership and primary focus on news leads to different results than corporate rentals for specific purposes. The idea media sources have leanings is not "news" of course. They had them back in the day. The media still is supposed to follow certain ethical rules that an ice cream corporation that "rents" a printing press need not. A core idea struck down in CU, which again I am more supportive than many I often agree with, was to allow corporate money but to separate it into PACS. If they also had separate media sources (as some in effect do) that had to follow media guidelines, that could be appropriate too.
Brett with this:
"The problem is, this is equally true of the spending of corporations like MSNBC or CNN. Whose "news coverage" is often just a scarcely disguised "in kind" contribution to the candidates they favor." seems oblivious to the obvious contributions of Fox to conservatives' political causes. Consider that Allen West, defeated in his reelection efforts, is reported to be going to work on Fox, which has hired other similarly ilked losing conservative politicians. Roger Ailes' political agenda from Fox's beginnings is well known. (Of course, Turd Blossom Rove's reaction on election night on Fox's calling OH for Obama was untypical of conservative reactions to Fox historically.) It could be argued that but for Fox's "Feh and Unbalanced", MSNBC might be different and not the competitor Brett thinks it is. As for Brett's including CNN, that's nonsense. While the First Amendment's "press" can be in corporate form, not all corporations are the "press." Let Adelson, the Koch-heads et al commence traditional "press" operations in corporate form if they wish to invest their money in that manner. That's what Murdoch has done. But it's doubtful Adelson, the Koch-heads could be as effective.
Mark Fiore's "Perpetual Campaign" points to the Citizens United Stimulus' impact on the economy, suggesting that unemployment may rise if political campaigns are not perpetual, also referencing $6 Billion spent on the 2012 campaigns.
Shag from Brookline said...
Mark Fiore's "Perpetual Campaign" points to the Citizens United Stimulus' impact on the economy, suggesting that unemployment may rise if political campaigns are not perpetual, also referencing $6 Billion spent on the 2012 campaigns. :::rolls eyes::: That nonsense makes the broken windows scenario seem almost beneficial. Can there possibly be a worse waste of national wealth than a never ending campaign of negative political media?
Can there possibly be a worse waste of national wealth than a never ending campaign of negative political media?
# posted by Bart DePalma : 2:46 PM That depends on how many wealthy suckers Rove can get to contribute to his super pac 4 years from now.
Here's Marc Ambinder with some sensible advice for Republicans:
http://theweek.com/article/index/235911/what-republicans-need-to-do-now Look, Bart, if the Tea Party were so popular, Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock would be Senators-Elect right now. The reality is that the "Reagan coalition" you worship is no longer extant. It is no longer 1984. Now there are many directions that the Republican Party can go in, but all of them involve the same sort of painful process Bill Clinton and the DLC put the Democrats through where some interest groups find out that they aren't going to get everything they want anymore. Remember, so long as the Republican Party is in some sense more conservative than the Democratic Party on major issues, conservatives have nowhere else to go and WILL vote for the Republican candidate. Karl Rove sold the Republican base on a myth that all you could do was motivate your base and then you could be as conservative as you wanted to be and still win elections. The funny thing is, it was BS even compared to his own candidate's actions-- George W. Bush had centrist positions on education reform, immigration, and Medicare prescription drugs. You win elections by winning swing voters. Romney lost almost every major swing state. Any conservative who thinks the way to win those swing states is to be MORE conservative is thinking with some organ other than the brain.
I have to say that as much as I loathe all the money in politics I have to agree somewhat with Brett. I don't see how one can limit Planned Parenthood from running ads to help someone get defeated while Fox News works as a 24 hour, 7 day a week communications arm for the GOP (feel free to switch 'NRA' for PP and MSNBC and Dems for Fox and GOP to suit). Joe presents an at least defensible idea on that, but I just don't put faith in these 'ethical rules media is supposed to follow' restraining them much (how restrained does Fox and MSNBC strike you in trying to get their favored candidates elected?).
CU left open room for solid disclosure rules. I would like to see these tried (and if they don't work then perhaps something like corporate reform requiring majority or 2/3 shareholder approval for political expenditures), before wading into how to sort out corporate renting and owning of press. Dilan When I look at exit polls I'm afraid I just don't see an electorate turned off by conservatism per se, though perhaps opposition to immigration did. Obama lost whites including white women, that makes me think that the GOP did not lose many voters due to abortion stances (though the ones that touted opposition to rape and incest exceptions did lose some of these women). Where the GOP lost was in the 70%+ of Hispanics (now 1 in 10 voters) that broke toward Obama. Unless these Hispanics are turned off by broader conservative stances and not simply immigration related positions I don't think they would have to change much to be viable.
"While the First Amendment's "press" can be in corporate form, not all corporations are the "press.""
This is a gross category error. NO corporation is "the press". Not the NYT, not ADM. "The press", referred to in the 1st amendment, is the actual printing press, which we are ALL, every last one of us, real person and corporation, guaranteed the freedom of. The First amendment equally protects big city newspapers, and block club newsletters. Political tracts and grocery lists. Newspapers have no special rights denied anybody else. Though they're frequently arrogant enough to believe they do.
The Raagan coalition has not existed since the end of the Cold War when the Soviets surrendered and the anti-communist wing lost its purpose, then Climton started poaching the Reagan Dem white working class vote. Next, the Tea Party is a voter movement and NOT a political party running candidates. Any politician can claim the Tea Party "brand," but it is up to the voters to decide whether he or she passes muster. Because the Tea Party is a grass roots movement, we also spllit our votes, which is how Romney won the nomination.
"referred to in the 1st amendment, is the actual printing press"
That's a reasonable argument but it is not compelled by the text.
Brett's commentary on the "press" evidences the shallowness of originalism to the extreme, at least as he (mis)understands it. With Brett's view, the Air Force would not be constitutionally provided for as the Constitution specifies an Army and a Navy but not an Air Force. And in Brett's view, there was no constitutionally provided for or protection of slavery since the Constitution (pre-Civil War Amendments) fails to use the terms "slave" and "slavery," such that what was all the fuss about the Civil War and the Civil War Amendments? Nor does the Constitution specify corporations, such that they can be regulated but no the "press," i.e., the machine known back then as the printing press.
There are academic papers out there, some of recent vintage, relative to distinctions between the First Amendment's "speech" and "press" clauses. I'll look through my files for originalism's view on the "press" clause to see how it compares to Brett's view.
"as the Constitution specifies an Army and a Navy"
I think it's time you go back and read the Constitution, from front to back; It's a useful exercise to do so once in a while, it keeps your memory of the actual document from growing vague. "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;" Note the plural. Congress is permitted to raise more than one Army. The Air Force is simply an Army which uses airplanes.
"hat's a reasonable argument but it is not compelled by the text."
It is compelled by the text, if you apply the meanings the words had at the time the 1st amendment was written. Do you really thing the newspaper industry was called "the press" 220 years ago? No, they started calling themselves that somewhat later, as a result of the language in the 1st amendment. Further, "freedom of speech, or of the press"; This would be a rather strange construction were "the press" to be construed to refer to organized newspapers, rather than the act of printing. The idea that the First amendment only protects the use of the printing press by an institution calling itself "the press" is of somewhat recent origin. It's nothing any originalist would take seriously, and for good reason.
Brett again provides a possible interpretation, though this time, perhaps, somewhat less likely to be what is meant.
I think the idea very well might be that they opposed standing armies. So, "armies" would tend to be short lived affairs, raised when necessary to fight wars and such. The militia doing the job in peacetime. But, the "navy" is like a building, it's permanent. Singular. The "air force" is not actually seen now as a flying army. It's a separate service. Why not make the navy merely a floating army? Literalists very well might note an army and air force very well might be considered sort of different. Anyway, in your readings, I recommend checking out something by Eugene Volokh. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1802229 And, with that, I will end for the weekend. Cheers.
The "air force" is not actually seen now as a flying army. It's a separate service. Why not make the navy merely a floating army? The Navy holds the sea, the Army the land. The air force holds nothing The air force is nothing more than human guided artillery. It is a weapons system to support the Army and Navy.
Interesting post, but I'd say Obama has work left to do if he wants to be grouped in with those presidents. It will also depend on how his policies bear out--Roosevelt is seen as tranformative partly due to the impact his policies had over the next several decades, and still have today. Maybe Obama will be the start of a period where neither party can ignore minority voters--we'll see.
I don't think you can really dismiss Citizens United so quickly after an election that saw over a billion spent by each "team." Obama and Romney spent most of their year fundraising. Sure the "substantive political outcome" didn't change, but both parties are that much more beholden to wealthy backers. A sentence for each of the two trolls: Brett- Black voters went for Kerry 88-11, nearly the same margin as for Obama, and it didn't even take 4 years of birtherism and Kenya rumors. Bart- Surely you can do better than regurgitating the Romney claptrap about "suppressing the vote?" Turnout in the swing states was down a few points from the historically high 2008 election, and not unusually low nationally despite drops in Sandy-affected states. Republicans are still in denial. Next up: anger. I'm ready to jump straight to bargaining myself.
Today's WaPo features Dana Milbank's "The GOP's Blame Game" on its loss of the presidency starting with the five (5) stages of grief - but never completing the 5th stage -and then goes beyond with more specific, but entertaining, examples/reasons. Yes, this a a Democratic Charlie Brown - "Good Grief!" - moment; the "Gooder" the better.
And the fun in today's WaPo is not over with the burnt offerings of George Will and Kathleen Parker. The latter's namesake Dorothy might have said for the occasion: "If all the old white men who voted for The Mittster were laid from end to end, I would be surprised."
Thanks to Brett and improving eyesight, my reading over the weekend will include Sonja R. West's "Awakening the Press Clause" published in 2011, 58 UCLA Law Review 1025. (She is an Ass't. Prof. at U. of GA School of Law.)
Yes indeed it is important to read the entire Constitution but not as blinders. History, SCOTUS opinions, etc, subsequent events cannot be ignored. The Catechism Method does not well serve constitutional interpretation/construction. The article is 47 pages in length, single spaced, so it will take me longer than usual to read it, especially since I plan to check footnotes. I do not believe that the press clause is superior to the speech clause or vice versa. Rather, unlike Brett, I don't think the press clause is the equivalent of a potted plant.
I like joe's point about 'armies' likely referring to armies that would be called up and then dissolved; the Founder's distaste for standing armies was well known.
I think Brett and Bart are missing the point re the Air Force. Can you analogize and say 'well, the Air Force is like a weapons system or another army and therefore it is ok with originalism?' Sure, it's not unreasonable. But look at how loose one must be with the text to get your result, if textualism can be that loose then its biggest claim to validity, that it is a restraint on judges' subjective whims, is undercut.
WOW! Frank Rich's New York Magazine column 11/9/12 "Fantasyland -Denial has poisoned the GOP and threatens the rest of the country too" omits nothing in analyzing the 2012 presidential election. Fortunately Rich is not limited to the short word count of many political commentators. I'm looking forward to tomorrow morning's political talk shows, hoping that George Will, Peggy Noonan, Karl Rove, Joe Scarborough, Chuck Krauthammer, Michael Barone, Kathleen Parker, Mary Matalin, et ilk, will be on board with finger pointing (except at each other).
I'm looking forward to tomorrow morning's political talk shows, hoping that George Will, Peggy Noonan, Karl Rove, Joe Scarborough, Chuck Krauthammer, Michael Barone, Kathleen Parker, Mary Matalin, et ilk, will be on board with finger pointing (except at each other). Consulting the political class about the thinking of American voters is increasingly a fools errand. They almost live on different planets. I would recommend the polling of Rasmussen and Schoen exploring the differing views of the political class and nearly everyone else compiled in their book Mad as Hell.
I would recommend the polling of Rasmussen
# posted by Bart DePalma : 11:31 PM Why? Rasmussen had a really shitty record in 2012. He is as clueless as you.
My headline earlier posted on the election results:
SILVER TAKES THE GOLD! can now have added this subheading: WHILE OUR YODELER TAKES THE BRASS! Rasmussen? His poll-dancing is the equivalent of porn.
Are you a complete knee jerk reactionary? Mention someone of whom you do not approve, shout on blog? This was a collaboration of Rasmussen and the Democrat Schoen to examine the attitudes within groups of people in an attempt to illuminate our ideological divide over a period of several months, not a horse race poll. BTW, no pollster predicted 2012 - a general drop in turnout with whites staying home the most. All the pollsters predicted a high number of likely voters with wildly different guestimates as to composition.
It's too bad the Andrew Sisters are not around to serenade our yodeler with a chorus of:
"Bei Mir Bistu 'Schoen'" as our yodeler tries to explain what his lying eyes see. Our yodeler can be expected to use the George Costanza defense: "It you believe it, it's not a lie."
Blankshot, you predicted a Mittens landslide without the slightest evidence supporting that view. I plan to keep reminding you of that until I retire from arguing with idiots.
There's no such thing as "lasting damage" to major parties in a two-party system. Each party gets about half of the people. If one party starts to do better than 50% then the center just moves to compensate.
I think the Whigs suffered "lasting damage" in the mid-1800's. But our political system was freer in some significant respects back then, fewer people could vote, but there were less attempts to restrict the choices they'd have.
Now access to the ballot and the media are so tied up by the major parties that it probably is true nothing of the sort could happen again. Though I'd be delighted to be proven wrong about this.
Brett seems to be attempting to re-engineer (revise) history. His view of history is as competent as his views of the Constitution.
Over at the VC, First Amendment Genie Volokh's post "The Original Meaning of 'the Freedom of the Press' and Non-Political Speech" is a reminder that I still have about 15 pages to read to finish Prof. Sonja R. West's article "Awakening the Press Clause." At page 1035, West states: "Some propose that the Press Clause proctets a particular technology -- the printing press.56" Note 56 refers to a Volokh VC post in response to Citizens United. But First Amendment Genie Volokh in his recent post does not reference the"potted plant" equivalent for the Press Clause.
"But our political system was freer in some significant respects back then, fewer people could vote, but there were less attempts to restrict the choices they'd have."
Yes, "freer" here means blacks (de facto) and women (de jure) couldn't vote, just to cite the obvious cases. Let's not forget poll taxes and other ways to suppress the rights of the poor. Then, we have the much more restrictive (including an early law on regulating corporate donations; sorry, that was 1907, after the expulsion from Eden) law on protected speech. Support of certain causes was deemed downright criminal. This sort of thing "restricted choices" a tad. We don't have something as bad as slavery [I realize Brett, with his KKK references and such, thinks AA and gun regulation is of that caliber, but somewhat atypical] to uproot the parties, but major shifts did occur -- see the shift in the Republican Party in the 1960s and the DLC shift of the Dems in response. Or, the Tea Party type shift of the Republicans (where Orin Hatch is suspicious). BTW, I read the article Shag cited & it's nice to see he read some of Eugene (sic) Volokh's piece. The "potted plant" there is not "the press" (under EV's argument, I'm using "the press" now) but in effect "the media." I think the "the press" should have certain protections like a modified press privilege regarding protecting sources. But, I think both articles are valuable. I realize this violates the "it's so obvious" stance of some.
(1) They are still counting votes, especially in California and Obama's margin/totals continue to increase. (2) Given that your pre-election predictions were not only wrong, but arrogantly and ignorantly wrong, and given that the same was true in 2008 (I remember the "Bradley effect means McCain will win PA!" nonsense), why should anyone, Republican or Democrat, take you seriously now?
I finally finished Prof. Sonja West's article and it was a worthwhile read despite my continuing (but improving) reading problems. Prof. West recognized the difficulty in defining "press." She does not aim in this article to come up with a recommended definition, leaving that to a future article by her. (I have checked the 'net without finding such a future article.) Prof. West feels strongly that textually the Press Clause is distinct from, while related to, the Speech Clause. She recognizes that the Court's overprotectiveness of the Speech Clause cannot be extended to the Press Clause. The Court seems reluctant to take a stab at defining the Press Clause and separating it from the Speech Clause.
Joe's reference to Eugene [sic] Volokh reminded me that I have not read his recent article "Freedom for the Press as an Industry, or for the Press as a Technology: From the Framing to Today" published in 160 U. of PA L.S. 459 (2012) in its entirety; rather I have read Eugene's [sic] postings at the VC and perhaps perused an earlier draft of the article. Eugene's article runs 87 pages and because of Joe my eyesight will have the challenge to read it in its entirely. Prof. West's article is briefly reference in footnote 6. I hope to make inroads on Eugene's article today. Perhaps Prof. West is digesting Eugene's article as she may be preparing her follow-up article attempting to define, narrowly, the Press Clause. Originalism is far from a science, as are other theories of constitutional interpretation/construction. Eugene's article closed with this sentence [I peeked at his Conclusion]: "The goal of this Article is simply to say that an argument for a press-as-industry interpretation of the Free Press Clause must rely on something other than original meaning, text, purpose, tradition, or precedent." Perhaps linguists and historians may differ. Assuming one buys into the press as a technology view, consider how both Profs. West and Volokh (and others before them) had to remove blinders to look outside the four corners of the Constitution for answers that may not be final. And Joe, thanks for providing, as usual, balance.
"because of Joe my eyesight will have the challenge to read it in its entirely"
uh huh. I feel so special. Anyway, life's complications for me in this area make it more interesting. I also think it matches reality, but any port in the storm. Enjoy & thanks for the article. It was as noted interesting. BTW, Brett has a follow-up, apparently, at Concurring Opinions, but I'll leave that thread be as I will this one. Happy reading.
The "speeches" section of the USSC website mainly has stuff from Stevens, the latest interesting as usual. Election connection: discussion of judicial elections.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/speeches/speeches.aspx [11/9/12]
DePalma writes: Obama won reelection by being better than Romney at making voters so sick of the political process that they stayed home.
As the physicist said: this is not even wrong. But it's the Rove line. Democratic voter suppression! DePalma, who predicted an outstanding Romney victory, hasn't gotten out of his bubble; still parroting Fox News; as then, so still now. Obama won reelection because the Etch-A-Sketch Candidate could not shake in all those flips (I was for _____ before I was against _____), lies (Jeep production is moving from Ohio to China), evasions (tax returns? what tax returns? I don't have to show you no stinking tax returns!). His overseas tour started out ineptly, by insulting the Brits. Obama also won reelection because Republicans are so mean! Mean to women (legitimate rape, a baby from a rape is God's plan, abortion is never necessary to save the mother's life), mean to Hispanics (self-deportation, racial profiling), mean to African-Americans, to poor people... It's hard to win an election when your party is so mean! Republican attempts at voter suppression seemed in part to backfire as voters stood for hours in lines waiting for their opportunity to exercise the franchise. But we don't know how many gave up after some hours. These were not the polling places in Shaker Heights. However, according to the Pew study of non-voter attitudes, 3/4 of them were for Obama. So what is suppressing their votes?
I finally completed my reading of Prof. Eugene Volokh's exhaustively researched article on the First Amendment's Press Clause. It is not clear to me whether Volokh is a dedicated originalist but he employs originalist techniques with this article covering pre-Framing to the present, mostly with decisions of various courts, both English, Colonial and American. I don't know if there have been any scholarly critiques of his article by other First Amendment scholars, historians (legal and otherwise) or linguists. If so, I would be interested in reading such critiques.
Post a Comment
I would hope that Prof. Sonja West's plans for a follow up to her earlier article may soon be forthcoming and might address Volokh's article. In any event, in my view Volokh's article demonstrates the failings of originalism as a theory of interpreting/construing the Constitution. Original understanding/meaning on the part of framers, ratifiers, the public cannot be ascertained primarily by a handful or two of legal opinions that might not have filtered beyond lawyers to the vast public at the time. As one who grew up with the concept of the "Fourth Estate," I find it difficult to conclude that the framers, ratifiers, public back then considered "press as technology." The technology of the press was of course quite important. Focus on the history of the technological improvements of the printing press especially in the past few decades with the Internet and cell phones that via social networks and otherwise can permit someone with a cell phone and the proper apps to publish widely. The founders', framers, ratifiers, public understanding of commerce, for example, as it evolved, just as with press as technology today, was inadequate. Volokh, at pages 469-70 of his article does mention Thomas Jefferson's statement that, "were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter." Volokh concludes the paragraph with: "But Jefferson spoke of newspapers, not newspapermen. There is no reason to think his praise or the Free Press Clause, excluded newspapers as a means of propagating the views of authors who weren't part of the press-as-industry but who occasionally submitted their articles for publication." I don't know if this is fair to Jefferson. Perhaps Jon Meacham's recent biography may shed some light. No, it's not just newspapers and the like, but other writings that are published. And it takes writers, including newspapermen, to produce the writings that the technology publishes. While Jefferson may not have spoken of newspapermen, he didn't have to as the technology of the press would not be able to publish without them. Maybe the recent technology advances broadly applies the Press Clause as much as the Speech Clause. But that's not the same as the Fourth Estate that has served us well in recent decades (e.g., Watergate, Iran/Contra, WMSs, etc). Newsgathering deserves some protections under the Press Clause that may be distinct from the Speech Clause. To say that because of the current technology everybody with a cell phone and the proper apps is a newsgatherer may be farcical. |
Books by Balkinization Bloggers Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin's Press, 2022) Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |


text:
If you've already heard that dinosaurs are extinct — and the betting is that you have — you've probably also heard the reason: an asteroid smashed into Mexico's Yucatán Peninsula some 65 million years ago, blasting enough dust into the atmosphere to block the sunlight and dim the skies. These days that's Intro to Dinos stuff, but prior to 1980, the thinking was very different. Dinosaurs endured a long, slow decline, the theory went, ceding their rule of the planet only gradually and grudgingly. The old theory is nearly as extinct as the beasts themselves — or at least it was until last week, when a new study pumped a little life back into it. About 200,000 years before the asteroid hit, a separate extinction was already under way, wiping out numerous species of clams and snails on the ocean floor. And it was terrestrial volcanoes, not a rock from space, that were to blame.
The new findings, published in the journal Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, are the product of three years of summer visits by researchers to Seymour Island, on the Antarctic Peninsula. Polar regions make research hard — one year the ice was so thick that the scientists' boat couldn't reach the shore — but when the weather cooperates, the sites offer fossil hunters distinct advantages. One is that, like today, the ancient poles were more susceptible to climate change. Ice then was the same as ice now, which is highly reflective. As it melts, it gives way to darker ocean water, which absorbs more light and heat, exacerbating warming in an accelerating loop. In this case, scientists wanted to determine temperatures in the polar ocean from 65 million years ago, so they gathered more than 100 ancient, 2-in.-wide (5 cm) shells from subterranean samples, then analyzed the minerals and calcium carbonate that had formed the shells.
(MORE: Just Big-Boned? Dinosaurs Skinnier than Once Thought)
Those ancient artifacts revealed a lot. Calcium carbonate — an organic stew of calcium, carbon and oxygen — is nature's answer to a stuck thermostat, with the environmental conditions when the material formed forever stamped into its chemical makeup. The oxygen portion has two variants: oxygen-16 and oxygen-18. If there's more oxygen-16, seawater temperatures were higher when the shell formed — and that's exactly what the scientists discovered, in this case an estimated 9ºF (5ºC) temperature jump from typical seawater temperatures. By matching that information with the strata layers where those oxygen-16-rich shells were found, geologists identified three periods of ocean warming: about 2 million years before the great dinosaur extinction, then 250,000 years before and again about 200,000 years after.
All three of those eras coincide nicely with volcanic events in India's Deccan Plateau, which may have belched enough carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to boost planetary temperatures and harm ocean dwellers. "If this warming is severe enough to be impacting marine life, it's likely impacting terrestrial life too," says Tom Tobin, a doctoral student at the University of Washington and the report's lead author. "So it's not unreasonable to think that the environmental stress from the volcanism contributed to the strength of the asteroid extinction. One of [the events] is synchronous with the marine extinction that we found 200,000 years before the asteroid impact."
(MORE: The Robotic Dinosaurs That Could Change Paleontology Forever)
Such relatively specific dates underscore another reason the scientists chose their Antarctic research site: it offers unusually thick, 3,200-ft.-deep (1,000 m) sediment, and the deeper the sediment is, the more layers of geologic time have been preserved. This region apparently built up more than most because of repeated sediment deposits during uplift of the mountain range that makes up the Antarctic Peninsula. In fact, the Seymour Island site has so many sediment layers that scientists could whittle the time intervals down to hundred-thousand-year scales — a minuscule window compared with the 10-million-year degree of accuracy most sites provide.
Even this geologic precision, however, wasn't enough to seal the deal, at least not to an acceptable scientific certainty. So the scientists used an imaginative method, matching changes in Earth's magnetic field to different layers in the strata. Though most people assume magnetic north is a constant, it isn't. Every 500,000 years or so — and in random periods ranging from as little as 100,000 years to 30 million years — the magnetic north pole flips to the south pole. When it does, magnetic particles in slow-building sediments orient themselves accordingly, then become locked in place as further sediment builds.
(MORE: Rewriting the Book on Dinosaurs)
With this in mind, the researchers drilled core samples and compared the particles' orientation with the known history of magnetic-field changes. That provided confirmation that the earlier oceanic extinctions occurred within the range of Deccan volcanism. "Once we compared the warming record to the timing of the volcanism," says Tobin, "we realized, Hey, these things seem to line up pretty well. This is pretty cool. It brings more complexity and nuance to the picture we already had."
Intrigued by the possibility of further reconciling extinction theories, the researchers are searching for a second site with the rare, deep sediment layers necessary for a close-up look at the late-Cretaceous period. For the moment, it seems that both volcanoes and the infamous asteroid may have contributed to the dinosaurs' demise — a tidy addendum to Dino 101.


text:
Two big things happened Tuesday with regards to immigration reform: President Barack Obama announced his plans at a Las Vegas high school, and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio called into Rush Limbaugh's radio program. The second event mattered more.
Obama's own proposal has been years in the making. After breaking his promise to push comprehensive immigration reform in his first term, he made a push in his second term a central theme of his campaign. His proposal, in the form of broad principles, is exactly what has long been expected: further strengthen borders, increase workplace enforcement, create a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, and increase routes of legal immigration. It differs from the outlines of the Senate proposal only in some details, like by offering same-sex couples the same rights to visas as heterosexual couples, and in not defining a set of enforcement triggers that would allow the path to citizenship to move forward. But Obama did make clear that his happiness over the bipartisan Senate process would not keep him from the spotlight. "Action must follow," he said. "If congress is unable to move forward in a timely fashion, I will send up a bill of my own proposal and insist that they vote on it right away."
(MORE: Will Immigration Reform Work This Time?)
The real action was on Limbaugh's program. In the constellation of conservative radio talkers, Limbaugh has never been the most hawkish immigration reform opponent. He has mostly avoided the cultural demagoguery of hosts like Michael Savage, preferring to talk about the issue as an economic one, and a one of fairness for American workers. Nonetheless, Limbaugh was a vocal and influential opponent during the last Senate effort to pass a reform bill in 2007. If that opposition returns, with a Republican controlled House, the chances for the bill becoming law would be in serious question. But in recent days, Limbaugh has been charting a delicate course, both expressing skepticism for the emerging plan, and embracing the bipartisan proposal.
"The president is out there saying, 'I'm not gonna have any border security,' " Limbaugh said Tuesday. " I mean, Obama's gonna go to Vegas and make a speech and oppose the Senate bill's border enforcement requirements. Does that tell you that he's interested in any kind of a deal, in any kind of a compromise? It doesn't say that to me." Of course, none of this was accurate. But it was an important shift. Limbaugh, often a bellwether of conservative populist sentiment, placed himself on the side of a comprehensive bill that included a path to citizenship.
(MORE: The Economics of Immigration: Who Wins, Who Loses and Why)
That opens a clear route for compromise. That sense was confirmed by Limbaugh's treatment of Rubio, an author of the bipartisan Senate plan. "What you are doing is admirable and noteworthy," Limbaugh told Rubio. "You are recognizing reality. You're trumpeting it, you're shouting it." And then the radio talk show host went on to continue his attack on Obama, as a duplicitous all-or-nothing politician who cares more about Democrats winning future elections than solving the immigration problem.
Comprehensive immigration reform is by no means a sure thing this year. The details–over enforcement triggers, esoteric provisions of how ObamaCare impacts immigrants, and rights for same sex partners–could still prevent a deal from being reached. But the broad outlines are now commonly understood, and standard bearers of opposition just five years ago are now on board. "The differences are dwindling," Obama said in the high school in Las Vegas. "A broad consensus is emerging." He was exaggerating only slightly.
MORE: Not Legal Not Leaving


text:
Monday, May 11, 2009
Eggplant Parmesan Casserole - Killing Two Food Wishes with One Delicious Stone
You can do a few things small scale at home with a fry-daddy, but for the most part those deep-fried delicacies you want me to demo are best ordered out. Normally, eggplant Parmesan would fall under this "needs to be fried to be good" category, but in this video recipe you'll see my method for a much easier casserole-style version.
One problem with eggplant is they soak up and incredible amount of oil. They can't help it, it's their nature. To counter this, we reserve the crispiness for the top crust. By using a nice thick layer of crunchy Parmesan breadcrumbs, we get a very similar fork full of food, but at significant caloric savings. Enjoy!
2 eggplants
olive oil as needed
3/4 cup ricotta cheese
1/2 cup grated Parmesan
1/4 cup shredded pepper Jack
salt and pepper to taste
2 garlic cloves, sliced
3 cups tomato sauce (prepared pasta sauce is best)
1/2 tsp red pepper flakes
for the topping:
3/4 cup breadcrumbs
1/2 cup grated Parmesan
2 tbsp olive oil
64 comments:
Eggplant are so beautiful. I keep buying them at my local farmers market and bringing them home because they are so pretty, but I haven't found a way to use them yet that I like. I will try your recipe this weekend!
- May 11, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Looks great! I love eggplant parmesan but have never been able to reproduce it at home so I'm excited about this.
One question--when you say tomato sauce, do you mean like jarred pasta sauce or plain tomato sauce?
Jaclie - May 11, 2009 at 1:31 PM
- Chef John said...
use a nice pasta sauce
- May 11, 2009 at 1:40 PM
hi! you use a lot of cheese! how is this going to affect my cholesterol levels? :) seriously :)
- May 11, 2009 at 2:55 PM
- Chef John said...
I can't pretend to be concerned about your cholesterol levels. ;-)
- May 11, 2009 at 2:57 PM
- soreal said...
there is a way to reduce the amount of oil absorbed by eggplants
the trick is to soak them in salted water for a few hour before cooking them..
then when u fry them, dont drop them in cold oil
if after doing so the oil still being absorbed, you need to increase the amount of salt in the soaking water
btw, it works too on potatos - May 11, 2009 at 3:41 PM
- Jesse from Detroit said...
Where did 17.4 come from?
- May 11, 2009 at 4:02 PM
- Chef John said...
where most of my stats come from...I made it up.
- May 11, 2009 at 4:11 PM
- Food Junkie said...
Sigh. To try or not to try that is the question. While it is possible I have never had well prepared eggplant (sorry mom) I have never much cared for the stuff and generally avoid it. The recipe looks delicious but I would hate to waste all that yummy cheese only to discover that the eggplant is still awful. lol Awww heck. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
- May 11, 2009 at 5:00 PM
- Chef John said...
the food Gods hate a coward.
- May 11, 2009 at 5:43 PM
- Reeni said...
Hi Chef John,
I wanted to let you know that I came across a website that is publishing my recipes and posts off my blog, and yours too. Here is the link:
http://www.easydeliciousrecipes.com/italian/pebble-beach-food-and-wine-2009-recap-coming-soon-to-a-video-recipe-blog-near-you/#comment-15 - May 11, 2009 at 9:55 PM
- Grams Pam said...
I'm with Chef John on this, Hygienist. While I don't know you, You're probably not 80 years old. I'll bet you're wondering, "..and that would be important because...?"
Check out my comment under Chef John's "little green balls of death" recipe. (Link here: http://foodwishes.blogspot.com/2008/10/little-green-balls-of-death-unfairly.html ) - May 11, 2009 at 10:24 PM
- Chef John said...
thanks for the info!
- May 11, 2009 at 11:04 PM
- Grams Pam said...
Scathing comment left on "that" site.
How dare they!?! - May 12, 2009 at 1:39 AM
- CollegeGourmet said...
Not a huge fan of eggplant, except in eggplant Parmesan (probably because of the cheese and oil). I will definitely have to try this healthier version and see what I think.
- May 12, 2009 at 10:36 AM
- San-Man said...
Exactly why and when did Eggplant Parmigiana (an eyetalian dish) become Eggplant Parmesan (French)??? It's no more a french dish than french fries are...This annoys me to no end...
- May 12, 2009 at 7:54 PM
- Chef John said...
I really don't care either way, but I used Parmesan instead of Parmigiana since it's searched for twice as much as the correct term. Since I get much of my traffic from people searching google I use what will bring in the most viewers.
Everyone else should use Parmigiana so you don't get annoyed. - May 12, 2009 at 9:26 PM
- Food Junkie said...
Well Chef John hasn't steered me wrong yet I'll have to give this one a try. And no Pam I am not 80 and won't be for a few decades yet. I promise not to wait til then try this recipe.
- May 12, 2009 at 9:35 PM
- Chef John said...
they removed my stuff, thanks
- May 14, 2009 at 1:30 AM
- Francesca Tariffe Telecom said...
Eggplants are superbous! I think it is my favorite food, so tasty! I absolutely have to try this recipe and then I will let you know! :)
- May 14, 2009 at 8:14 AM
- Francesca Tariffe Telecom said...
Eggplants are simply fantastic..It is absolutely my favorite food and I have to try this recipe, looks so tasty! I will let you know..:)
- May 14, 2009 at 8:19 AM
- Itsmee said...
Awesome recipe. I cant wait to try this one. Maybe I will even cook it this weekend for myself, bachelor style. ie. freeze half and live off of it next week! Although tough getting pepperjack in Germany I think, but everything else I can get.
- May 20, 2009 at 5:53 PM
I had some leftover eggplant so I made this dish last night. It's very good. I didn't have enough eggplant to incorporate it into the sauce so I just used a decent (Pastene) spaghetti sauce. The shredded pepper Jack was excellent and there's no need to think mozzarella is needed. Yum Yum Yum I doubt I used even a tablespoon of olive oil so it's a relatively healthy dish.
- May 30, 2009 at 10:00 AM
- Bruce Huttner said...
Hi Chef John Tried your eggplant parmesan and liked - but not loved -it. I think leaving the skin on made it taste a bit bitter. I will try again without the skin and see if that improves it. Otherwise I think it is a reasonable alternative to the deep fried version. Maybe the flavor (bitterness?) will mellow with anight in the fridge? Leftovers will tell the story tomorrow! Cathy PS I LOVE the sound of your voice! No bitterness there!
- July 8, 2009 at 7:03 PM
- Chef John said...
bitterness varies from eggplant to eggplant. You can salt it and let the juices drain, this helps sometimes. Just rinse before you use. Thanks!
- July 8, 2009 at 7:11 PM
dear chef john...
i made your eggplant parmesan casserole tonight for my mom, brother, and boyfriend. i'm 23 years old and believe it or not, this is the first time i've ever cooked with a recipe. (usually i just make stirfrys and soups out of whatever is in the fridge). i obviously have very little cooking experience, but your recipe and video was so easy to follow! i pulled it off! can you believe it?! and everyone LOVED it! they are all asking when i will make it again. your blog is a great resource!
thank you! - August 8, 2009 at 2:47 AM
- Chef John said...
thanks! you made my day
- August 8, 2009 at 2:51 AM
Ooo. This was good. Even though I didn't have all the right types of cheese.
The poor eggplants looked like they were crying "feed me" when I restricted their oil intake though though. I love olive oil. It was hard not to give in. - August 14, 2009 at 10:21 PM
- Unknown said...
I have never had fried green tomatoes before, nor have I ever heard of doing such a thing...
I decided to fry a green tomato that fell off my tomato plant when it got knocked over by wind. So I followed your directions and you know... it's not that bad.... :)
I was concerned about solanine and did enough research to somewhat confidently assure myself that the solanine mostly gets cooked out when you fry them.
I actually quite like them :) - August 29, 2009 at 1:37 AM
- Healthy and Homemade said...
Definitely making it this way from now on, the regular version makes me feel a little sickly from being stuffed full of oil and cheese.
Yum yum yum eggplant. - December 23, 2009 at 5:18 PM
Just tried this recipe about a week ago for a family gathering...needless to say everyone loved it! People kept going back for seconds and thirds...awesome recipe, definately a do over! Thanks!
- January 25, 2010 at 8:28 AM
- Aerin-sol said...
Hi Chef - several friends and I get together once a month for board games and dinner, and this month I made this casserole. To feed all of us, I doubled the recipe; I was a little concerned that it wouldn't turn out as good as it probably does in the smaller casserole dish, but I think it didn't suffer too much. I brought home an empty dish, so I guess that says something. (-: Thanks!
- April 18, 2010 at 1:14 AM
- Chef John said...
thanks for the report!!
- April 18, 2010 at 1:19 AM
kind dissapointed with the outcome...bread crumbs and parmeggiano overtake all the rest of the flavors. Not my cup of tea although I love Aubergines.
- July 7, 2010 at 7:07 AM
This turned out perfectly!! I sautéed onions and mushrooms along with the diced eggplant for the sauce.
- August 12, 2010 at 1:08 AM
What do you think of baking the eggplant slices in the breadcrumb mixture and layering with your ceese mixture finishing on top with cheese instead? I am about to make some form of eggplant parm for the first time..
- September 21, 2010 at 9:07 PM
- Chef John said...
That should work!
- September 21, 2010 at 10:03 PM
- hope chests said...
I really don't like eggplants but this recipe is worth a try. I would love to make some.
- November 2, 2010 at 3:54 AM
- Speedyfuzzball said...
Eggplant parm is one of my favorites and I usually make it the full-fat way but I'm definitely going to try this when I get home from school =)
- November 2, 2010 at 12:16 PM
Ugh, this was gross. BUT, it wasn't the recipes fault, more like the eggplant's. I ordered it from Peapod.com. Even though I love Peapod, eggplant is something you should probably pick out yourself. They were very small, VERY soft, and brown in parts.
One bite and I gagged. We pitched the hole batch and ordered take-out.
I'll try this recipe again but with eggplant I picked out myself. - April 3, 2011 at 1:39 PM
- Paul D said...
OK, I can't keep telling my Calabrese/ New York relatives that this is simply an "eggplant casserole" – it sounds too "grandmaish", and doesn't do this tray of magnificence much justice in my opinion.
Therefore, in my home, I have taken the liberty of renaming this gem of a dish "The Giovanni" after my favorite Italian-American internet chef – Chef John. "The Giovanni" receives much love, even from my mother-in-law who has eaten Melanzane prepared a million different ways since her birth at the beginning of time. I hope this spring and summer people make this dish (the right way!) and Chef John copyrights it or something…
P.S. There is nothing worse than under cooking eggplants folks. Don't be afraid to let 'em cook. That could be where you hit a road bump. - April 12, 2011 at 9:49 PM
Thank you for this recipe Chef John!! I always thought eggplant parmesan was "okay". Part of me knew it COULD be awesome, and this recipe proves it. I have made it delicious before, but it was always so much work. Thank you for a ridiculously easy recipe free of all that salting and sweating the eggplant, breading, frying, etc. nonsense. So easy and truly the best I've tasted.
Making it again tonight :) - November 22, 2011 at 7:54 PM
- Stefan Kim said...
I just found this recipe by coincidence, and realized it was the first recipe that I ever watched from Food Wishes! It's been a while since then... and you're even more awesome than ever! Thanks Chef John, for being the best.
- December 29, 2011 at 4:55 PM
Hi Chef, I am a vegetarian, and I came across this website while searching for melanzane parmigiana in allrecipes. The video was excellent...I tried making it last night, and my husband swore he will never eat another eggplant parmesan anywhere other than this homemade one...he was completely impressed with the flavour...my kids had the leftovers for breakfast! Thank you!
My breadcrumb topping was a littel dry, maybe I should add more olive oil next time? : ) - January 13, 2012 at 8:06 AM
- joymama said...
This is the third time I've made this dish, the second time making it with homemade ricotta cheese.
Perfecct vegetarian recipe. - January 15, 2012 at 9:12 PM
ok, gotta ask...do you have a garden?
- July 5, 2012 at 7:18 PM
- Chef John said...
yes, but just flowers and herbs...not enough sun :(
- July 5, 2012 at 7:23 PM
Awwe man, have you ever done a tomato pie...I have a garden full. Looked to see if you had a recipe and to no avail. Would love to have one!?!!! Hint, hint! :0)
- July 5, 2012 at 7:52 PM
Hi chef John! I am your newest fan and a cook of two weeks! All thanks to the discovery of your blog which brought life to my boring kitchen (and to my husband's stomach)! Eggplant is the next thing on my curriculum. Since I live in Korea, it is hard to get ricotta cheese here. What could it be replaced with?
- July 15, 2012 at 4:14 AM
- Chef John said...
Cottage cheese would be the closest but not nearly as good! Thanks!
- July 15, 2012 at 11:28 AM
- jody said...
Why did you slice the garlic instead of mincing it.
- October 22, 2012 at 4:54 PM
- Chef John said...
Just a change of pace! :)
- October 22, 2012 at 8:46 PM
- Unknown said...
I love this recipe - delicious, easy and healthy (compared to other Eggplant Parmesan recipes). And hey, Chef John, our 3-year-old Husky Pepper loves it, too!
- June 1, 2013 at 11:14 AM
- cookinmom said...
Awe mannnn! Wow...better than restaurant! Made this with fresh grown tomatoes from the garden. Third time making this and unbelievable. Served with spaghetti, corn (from garden) and salad. As always, "We enjoyed!"
- July 1, 2013 at 5:06 PM
- Chef John said...
Thanks! Glad you like it so much.
- July 1, 2013 at 5:10 PM
- teckaway said...
Thanks so much for the recipe Chef John, it was AMAZING. And for the tomato sauce too :D
http://instagram.com/p/p4HwQEiXVT/?modal=true - June 30, 2014 at 2:35 PM
- Robyn said...
Hi Chef John, I made the eggplant parmesan casserole today and I loved it. The video made it easy to put together and It was absolutely delicious. I am enjoying learning from your video collection, thanks for sharing it, Robyn
- July 21, 2014 at 5:37 PM
- Roberto said...
Try partially cooking the eggplant slices on a screaming hot grill pan. Same low-oil, low-caloric effect, but you also get attractive grill char marks.
- July 24, 2014 at 4:44 AM
- Roberto said...
I made this last night with a couple of changes. I used some Fontina and Pecorino Sardo cheese I had on hand, along with Parmigiano-Reggiano. I also softened the eggplant rounds on a very hot grill pan. I used passata (thin, uncooked tomato sauce in a bottle common here in Italy) for the sauce, but since it's quite plain, I sauteed a diced onion for a few minutes before adding the garlic and diced eggplant and then added some dry oregano when I added the passata.
The end result was wonderful. This is now on my "keeper" list. - July 24, 2014 at 11:56 PM
- Lauren said...
Ever thought of making Eggplant Lasagna? Getting round slices to be layered in a square dish is a conundrum!
- October 14, 2014 at 4:27 PM
- Unknown said...
Hello Chef John! I made this today for my former American host family and it turned out absolutely delicious! Since my eggplants were a little small, I used three and did not fill them taco style but just layered them lasagna style. I will definitely make it again, when I get my hands on ricotta again. Or I'll try with German Quark when I'm back. Thanks for all your recipes. Each I have tried turned out delicious!
- March 25, 2015 at 4:02 PM
- RomanZil said...
Chef John your awesome! You made me love cooking! Whenever I am looking for a recipe I search your blog first!
- March 13, 2016 at 4:26 PM
- Unknown said...
I once had eggplant parm at an Italian restaurant that set the bar and have struggled for 20 years to duplicate it with marginal success. The texture was like custard, the flavors were subtle and woven, it left me yearning for more now 30 years later.
One point I've arrived at is that the cheese and tomato sauce need to be restrained to avoid the gloppy mess we usually serve. The other is that the eggplant probably should be pre-cooked in some fashion, and then the dish assembled and heated.
I have the tomato and cheese parts of the equation to satisfaction, the search is now for how to impart the eggplant with the subtlety of texture and flavor. It may be in the quality of the breadcrumbs and oil, but my sense is that it was somehow made absorbent and took up a significant amount of egg, and the egg may have been a custard rather than just whipped egg. - November 13, 2017 at 12:02 PM
- NeonTreefrog said...
Love your videos Chef John. But this one seems to be missing. I want to tackle the difficult to tame EPP recipe and this seems like a great place to start. Please repost or show a YouTube link
Thanks so much
Michael - February 22, 2019 at 5:09 PM