From the New York Times Magazine last weekend, Ana Marie Cox interviews Bernie Sanders:

Cox:  Do you think it’s fair that Hillary’s hair gets a lot more scrutiny than yours does?
Sanders:  Hillary’s hair gets more scrutiny than my hair?
Cox:  Yeah.
Sanders:  Is that what you’re asking?
Cox:  Yeah.
Sanders:  O.K., Ana, I don’t mean to be rude here. I am running for president of the United States on serious issues, O.K.? Do you have serious questions?
Cox:  I can defend that as a serious question. There is a gendered reason —
Sanders:  When the media worries about what Hillary’s hair looks like or what my hair looks like, that’s a real problem. We have millions of people who are struggling to keep their heads above water, who want to know what candidates can do to improve their lives, and the media will very often spend more time worrying about hair than the fact that we’re the only major country on earth that doesn’t guarantee health care to all people.
Cox:  It’s also true that the media pays more attention to what female candidates look like than it does to what male candidates look like.
Sanders:  That may be. That may be, and it’s absolutely wrong.

Unfortunately, by virtue of her question and follow-up Cox becomes part of the problem, i.e., part of the media that’s giving undue attention to things that shouldn’t matter.  Sanders’ response to her hair question was spot on.  If I could have one wish granted to me it would be that people stop paying attention to things that don’t matter and pay more attention to things that do.  (Say bye to Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.  Oh, no worries though.  You can have them back after you eat your vegetables.) The way to switch the conversation from frivolous things to substance is not to remark to one another “Gee, isn’t it awful how the media and a large fraction of the electorate don’t pay attention to things that matter.”;   the way to switch the conversation is to start talking about things that do matter.    Please have at it.

Continue reading →

I did not watch the GOP candidates debate last night but driftglass did:

[So] far, the number of lies-per-minute has exceeded what physicists have long believed was bullshit’s theoretical upper limit.

To state the obvious, I won’t be voting for any of those fuckers.   That begs the question – actually, it doesn’t, but anyway – are there any Republicans that I’d seriously consider voting for in a head-to-head with Hillary?   To my surprise, I actually thought of a hypothetical GOP ticket that I’d consider.  No, seriously, I did.  Andrew Bacevich and Bruce Bartlett.  I have no idea if Bacevich is a Republican or if Bartlett still is one but they’re both conservatives.  More significantly, they’re both thoughtful, smart people.  (And, when he’s not busy commenting on economic policy, Bartlett can be pretty funny.)   We need more of those running for national office.