<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?><rss version="2.0"><channel><title>washingtonpost.com - Michael Kinsley</title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/opinion/columns/kinsleymichael?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</link><description>Michael Kinsley</description><language>en-us</language><ttl>15</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Influence, and Irony, for Sale]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10697-2005Apr22.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10697-2005Apr22.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</guid><pubDate>Sun, 24 Apr 2005 7:47:30 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[  You can't entirely blame Tom DeLay for being annoyed and feeling abused. He is trapped in a Washington kabuki drama not of his own devising.]]></description><author> Michael Kinsley</author></item><item><title><![CDATA[The Neocons' Unabashed Reversal]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57779-2005Apr15.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57779-2005Apr15.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</guid><pubDate>Sun, 24 Apr 2005 7:47:30 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[  The term "neoconservative" started out as an insult and is still used that way. When people say that the selection of Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank marks the triumph of neocons in Bush administration foreign policy, they are generally not indicating pleasure. Cynics say they are indicating anti-Semitism: A neocon is a Jewish intellectual you disagree with. That's way too harsh. But what does neoconservative mean?]]></description><author> Michael Kinsley</author></item><item><title><![CDATA[Love, Royal Style]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38724-2005Apr8.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38724-2005Apr8.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</guid><pubDate>Sun, 24 Apr 2005 7:47:30 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[  Grace Kelly and Prince Rainier of Monaco (who died last week) were your textbook royal marriage. But for a royal romance that reaches depths of profound emotion that seem almost human, give me Charles and Camilla any day.]]></description><author> Michael Kinsley</author></item><item><title><![CDATA[Democratic Superiority, by the Numbers]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20059-2005Apr1.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20059-2005Apr1.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</guid><pubDate>Sun, 24 Apr 2005 7:47:30 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ It was the TV talker Chris Matthews, I believe,  who first labeled Democrats and Republicans the "Mommy Party" and the "Daddy Party." Archaic as these stereotypes may be, they do capture general attitudes about the two parties. But we live in the age of the one-parent family, and it is Mom more often than Dad who must play both roles.]]></description><author> Michael Kinsley</author></item><item><title><![CDATA[Life as We  Don't Know It]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2219-2005Mar25.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2219-2005Mar25.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</guid><pubDate>Sun, 24 Apr 2005 7:47:30 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[   Based on the two big domestic stories of last week  --  Terri Schiavo and Social Security personoramification (or whatever they want us to call it instead of privatization)  --  the Republican philosophy seems to be that people need more control over their own retirements but less control over their own deaths.]]></description><author> Michael Kinsley</author></item><item><title><![CDATA[He Wrote, She Wrote]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50365-2005Mar19.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50365-2005Mar19.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</guid><pubDate>Sun, 24 Apr 2005 7:47:30 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[  When the New York Times anointed Maureen Dowd as a columnist nine years ago, I gave her some terrible advice. I said, "You've got to write boy stuff. The future of NATO, campaign spending reform. Throw weights. Otherwise, they won't take you seriously." The term "throw weights" had been made famous by a Reagan-era official who said that women can't understand them  --  whatever they are, or were.]]></description><author> Michael Kinsley</author></item><item><title><![CDATA[Life in the Spin Cycle]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8744-2005Mar4.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8744-2005Mar4.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</guid><pubDate>Sun, 24 Apr 2005 7:47:30 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[One day last week, four stories on the front page of the Los Angeles Times were about efforts to shape public perceptions.]]></description><author> Michael Kinsley</author></item><item><title><![CDATA[Bye-Bye, Housing Boom]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54743-2005Feb25.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54743-2005Feb25.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</guid><pubDate>Sun, 24 Apr 2005 7:47:30 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[Pop!<br> That is the sound of the real estate bubble bursting. And it's a good thing.]]></description><author> Michael Kinsley</author></item><item><title><![CDATA[Privilege and Presumption]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36625-2005Feb18.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36625-2005Feb18.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</guid><pubDate>Sun, 24 Apr 2005 7:47:30 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[   American democracy is a conspiracy of special interests against the general interest, but every special interest thinks that it is the general interest. Journalists often see this firsthand. They talk to a farmer about farm price supports and report back amazed at the ferocity and self-righteousness of the farmer's views. A farmer really believes that large government checks to farmers make America a better place, and can get very annoyed if you suggest otherwise.]]></description><author> Michael Kinsley</author></item><item><title><![CDATA[The Meathead Proposition]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17605-2005Feb11.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17605-2005Feb11.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</guid><pubDate>Sun, 24 Apr 2005 7:47:30 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[   Try to forgive my obsession, but here is another proof that President Bush's designs for Social Security cannot work. This one's not mine. I first heard it from the actor and liberal activist Rob Reiner. Like the argument I have been hawking (see <a href="http://www.latimes.com/proof">www.latimes.com/proof</a>), this one doesn't merely suggest that Bush is making bad policy. It demonstrates with near-mathematical certainty that the idea he endorses can't work. Period.]]></description><author> Michael Kinsley</author></item><item><title><![CDATA[The Thinker]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64966-2005Feb4.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64966-2005Feb4.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</guid><pubDate>Sun, 24 Apr 2005 7:47:30 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ The strangest aspect of President Bush's new War on Tyranny is the connection he draws between tyranny and terrorism. It's not the connection you would suspect, or the one Bush was making during his first term. When Saddam Hussein was still in charge of Iraq, it was enough to say that bad guys are bad guys. A sadistic dictator is just the type of person who would also harbor terrorists and stockpile weapons of mass destruction.]]></description><author> Michael Kinsley</author></item><item><title><![CDATA['Crossfire,' R.I.P]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27823-2005Jan21.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27823-2005Jan21.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</guid><pubDate>Sun, 24 Apr 2005 7:47:30 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[   Hungry for an issue that will unite us rather than divide us, Americans have settled on a loathing of television shows that divide us rather than unite us. The best known of these so-called "shoutfests" is CNN's "Crossfire," which has now been sacrificed on the altar of bad publicity.]]></description><author> Michael Kinsley</author></item><item><title><![CDATA[Fool Me Twice]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10931-2005Jan14.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10931-2005Jan14.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</guid><pubDate>Sun, 24 Apr 2005 7:47:30 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[   Will President Bush actually have the guts to nominate Clarence Thomas for chief justice when that opportunity arises, which will probably be soon? You know he's just aching to do it. Because of their shared judicial philosophy, of course. But also because of that arrogant willfulness Bush has that a more generous person than myself might even call integrity. Heck, why be president if you can't rub your critics' noses in it?]]></description><author> Michael Kinsley</author></item><item><title><![CDATA[In With the New Voting]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40054-2004Dec31.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40054-2004Dec31.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</guid><pubDate>Sun, 24 Apr 2005 7:47:30 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[  For better or worse, 2004 was the year the American Way of Voting  changed. What had been startling novelties in the 2000 election were confirmed as new traditions. Recounts and legal challenges don't shock us: We expect them. And other developments suddenly got noticed after years of steady growth. In Washington state, where I vote, they mail you a ballot on request, no questions asked, and once you're on the list you get a mailed ballot in subsequent elections without even asking. Nationwide, a fifth or more of all  votes on Nov.  2 came in some way other than going to the polls on Election Day.]]></description><author> Michael Kinsley</author></item><item><title><![CDATA[If It's Right, It's Wrong]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26064-2004Dec25.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26064-2004Dec25.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</guid><pubDate>Sun, 24 Apr 2005 7:47:30 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[   As I wrote last week, I'm convinced that Social Security privatization is not merely a bad idea but a certain failure, and I offered to provide a logical proof, challenging supporters to find the flaw or give up.]]></description><author> Michael Kinsley</author></item><item><title><![CDATA[Blogged Down]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9270-2004Dec17.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9270-2004Dec17.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</guid><pubDate>Sun, 24 Apr 2005 7:47:30 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[  If you're going to peddle opinions for a living, self-assurance is essential. If you don't have it, you need to bluff. People don't want to read a lot of "Oh dear, this is so terribly complicated, I just can't make up my poor little mind . . . ." Many's the pundit who has retired on full disability after developing a tragic tendency to see both sides of the issue.]]></description><author> Michael Kinsley</author></item><item><title><![CDATA[Civil Rights Lightning]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56433-2004Dec10.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56433-2004Dec10.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</guid><pubDate>Sun, 24 Apr 2005 7:47:30 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[  Sometime during the late 1980s, some guy (I don't remember who) from some conservative think tank (CATO? Hoover?) asked me at some Washington reception whether the New Republic, where I worked as the editor, would be interested in publishing an article advocating gay marriage. It was the first that I had heard of the idea.]]></description><author> Michael Kinsley</author></item><item><title><![CDATA[When Ideology is a Value]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15608-2004Nov26.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15608-2004Nov26.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</guid><pubDate>Sun, 24 Apr 2005 7:47:30 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[    It's been less than a month since the gods decreed that because of the election results American political life henceforth must be all about something called "values." And I gave it my best. Honest. But values won. I'm sick of talking about values, sick of pretending I have them or care more about them than I really do. Sick of bending and twisting the political causes I do care about to make them qualify as "values." News stories about values-mongers caught with their values down used to make my day. Now the tale of Bill O'Reilly and phone sex induces barely a flicker of schadenfreude.]]></description><author> Michael Kinsley</author></item><item><title><![CDATA[It Hurts, but Don't Stop]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64027-2004Nov19.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64027-2004Nov19.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</guid><pubDate>Sun, 24 Apr 2005 7:47:30 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[ Has there ever before been a war that so many people disapproved of but so few wanted to stop? Have the reasons for starting a war ever been so thoroughly discredited without turning into reasons for ending it?]]></description><author> Michael Kinsley</author></item><item><title><![CDATA[Electio ad Absurdum]]></title><link>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10802-2004Oct29.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10802-2004Oct29.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns/kinsleymichael</guid><pubDate>Sun, 24 Apr 2005 7:47:30 GMT</pubDate><description><![CDATA[  There's a poignant moment for the American political conversation around dinnertime  on Election Day. The polls are closing, but the results aren't yet in. Or, more likely, everybody you see on television already knows the likely result thanks to exit polls that  -- in a nutty exercise of misplaced high-mindedness -- they don't share with the public. In any event, for politicians and political journalists, there are about 10 seconds when there is truly nothing to say.]]></description><author> Michael Kinsley</author></item></channel></rss>
