Cloud Hosting

But what if the women, rather than being relegated to stock characters, were at the center of the narrative? That's the approach of FX's new series, "American Crime Story: Impeachment." The first episode opens on the tear-soaked face of Monica Lewinsky, a young woman whose sex life has thrust her unwillingly into a thicket of betrayals and deceptions. Lewinsky, portrayed in the series by Beanie Feldstein, found herself caught in 1998 in an abusive legal system with a team of investigators threatening to destroy her life if she failed to cooperate. (Not to mention her relationship with Clinton himself, which in 2018 she described as one defined by a power imbalance: "The road that led there was littered with inappropriate abuse of authority, station, and privilege.")

Sarah Paulson's Linda Tripp -- the Pentagon employee who secretly taped her conversations with Lewinsky and ultimately betrayed her to Starr's team -- is the focus of this first episode, which revolves tellingly around a network of women who laid the groundwork (some more willingly than others) for Clinton's impeachment.

By mapping that network, the series transforms a key episode in American history from one about the flaws of men into one about the agency of women. Seen from this vantage point, it becomes a story of power, politics, social relations and sex that is as much a product of the 2020s as it is a reflection on the 1990s.

The new series comes at a timely moment, in the midst of a broader cultural reassessment of both the 1990s and the women who were for so long the butt of jokes rather than main characters in their own stories. It's impossible to miss the reevaluation of the 1990s unfolding in popular culture during the last few years.

In political culture, the 1990s loom large, because they seem to be the starting point of so many of the trends that define our politics today: the return of America First politics in the presidential campaigns of Pat Buchanan, the expansion of punditry and political entertainment with the launch of MSNBC and Fox News, the sharp rise in political polarization and right-wing radicalization.

See the original post here:
Monica Lewinsky, Linda Tripp and Ann Coulter seen in a revealing new light - CNN

Jonah Goldberg| Tribune News Service

I got back to the U.S. from my honeymoon on Sept. 10, 2001. My wife went straight home to Washington, D.C, to start her new job at the Justice Department. I went to Washington state, where wed gotten married, to retrieve our dog Cosmo, whom wed left with family. I was in a hotel room in Pendleton, Oregon, when I saw the first reports of a plane hitting the World Trade Center. I used something called AOL Instant Messenger to tell my co-workers to turn on the TV.

Because my wife and I had dated for a long time, I used to say that the war on terrorism changed our daily lives more than getting married did. As weird as that sounds now, in some ways it was true. The Washington we returned to had changed. My wifes new job as the attorney generals chief speechwriter at the dawn of the war on terror was a bracing new chapter for us both. And politics, particularly conservative politics my beat, for want of a better term transformed almost overnight.

I was editor of National Review Online back then, and even though Id been traveling when the controversy broke out, it fell to me to fire Ann Coulter from National Review (which largely amounted to dropping her column). Outraged by airports clogged by security lines, she wrote: It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac. We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.

While this beating of the war drum was too much even for us, the rhythm of the next decade often echoed this tune. A flood of books both serious and silly poured forth about the war on terror, the imminent arrival of a new cold war or world war, and the generational struggle with Islam and Islamists that would define our future and our childrens future.

Two decades later, it seems like the past is a foreign country, and not just for the 1 in 4 Americans who werent even alive on 9/11.

We always see yesterday through the prism of today. As historian R.G. Collingwood put it, Every new generation must rewrite history in its own way. For instance, after 9/11, the dates that defined the past shriveled. The Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and the end of the Cold War in 1989 shrank, while 1932 (the founding of Saudi Arabia) and 1979 (the founding of revolutionary Iran) seemed larger in the rearview.

Similarly, we can look back on the excesses of the war on terrorism and see our reflection there. Many on the left greeted the crisis more as an opportunity to find fault with America than as an opportunity to unify against a common foe. Before the bogeyman of systemic racism, there was Islamophobia and the vaunted anti-Muslim backlash. While prejudice against Muslims certainly and regrettably increased, its worth noting that hate crimes against American Jews outnumbered those against Muslims throughout the war on terrorism. Im not sure thats worth celebrating, but the fact that America is arguably the safest place in the world to be a Jew certainly is.

Regardless, from the liberal hysteria about the Patriot Acts supposedly tyrannical assault on libraries to the rights wild fantasies that America was surrendering to Sharia law, the terrorism war now looks like our current culture war by other means.

In the early years, fretting over the threat to free speech posed by the war on terrorism was a left-wing obsession. Ward Churchill, who called the victims of 9/11 Little Eichmanns, was a martyr to free expression. Dissent, we were told, was the highest form of patriotism. When Barack Obama became president, dissent lost its patriotic glow for the liberals who wanted a hecklers veto against those who would provoke jihadists with irresponsible expression such as cartoons or films mocking Muhammad or asinine own-the-libs stunts like Koran-burning. And of course, Donald Trump did, for a moment, put some teeth into the anti-Muslim backlash when he tried to ban all Muslims from entering the country.

Wherever you come down on the specific controversies, its hard not be filled with regret and a little embarrassment over the solipsistic tendency of American politics to turn every issue into a stand-in for mutual partisan animosity. Even more depressing is the realization that the last 20 years have left us less prepared for the next 9/11 in the ways that matter most. Of course, the next 9/11 will look different, but the reaction probably wont.

Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is@JonahDispatch.

Read the original:
Goldberg: Partisan squabbling after 9/11 was a preview of the present - Oklahoman.com

I got back to the U.S. from my honeymoon on Sept. 10, 2001. My wife went straight home to Washington, D.C., to start her new job at the Justice Department. I went to Washington state, where wed gotten married, to retrieve our dog Cosmo, whom wed left with family.

I was in a hotel room in Pendleton, Ore., when I saw the first reports of a plane hitting the World Trade Center. I used something called AOL Instant Messenger to tell my co-workers to turn on the TV.

Because my wife and I had dated for a long time, I used to say that the war on terror changed our daily lives more than getting married. As weird as that sounds, in some ways it was true. The Washington we returned to had changed. Her new job as the attorney generals chief speechwriter at the dawn of the war on terror was a bracing new chapter for us both. And politics, particularly conservative politics my beat, for want of a better term transformed almost overnight.

I was editor of National Review Online back then, and it fell to me to fire Ann Coulter from National Review, which mostly amounted to dropping her syndicated column. A few days after 9/11, Coulter had written this about airport security: It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac. We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.

The rhetoric of the next decade often echoed this sort of beating of the war drum. A flood of books both serious and silly poured forth about the war on terror, World War IV and the generational struggle with Islam and Islamists that, we were told, would define our future and our childrens future.

Two decades later, it seems like the past really is a foreign country, and not just for the 1 in 4 Americans who werent alive on 9/11.

We always see the past through the prism of the present. As the historian R.G. Collingwood put it, Every new generation must rewrite history in its own way. For instance, after 9/11, the dates that defined the past shriveled. The Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and the fall of the Berlin Wall and end of the Cold War in 1989 shrank, while 1979, the founding of revolutionary Iran, seemed to grow larger.

Similarly, its hard not to look back on the excesses of the war on terror and see our reflection there. Many on the left greeted the crisis more as an opportunity to find fault with America than as an opportunity to unify against a common foe.

From hysteria on the left about the Patriot Acts supposedly tyrannical assault on libraries to the rights wild fantasies that America was surrendering to sharia law, the war on terror, in hindsight, looks a lot like our current culture war, just with different issues.

In the early years, fretting over the threat to free speech posed by the war on terror was a liberal and left-wing obsession. Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado professor who called the victims of 9/11 little Eichmanns, became a martyr to free expression. Dissent, we were told, was the highest form of patriotism.

Yet when Barack Obama became president, dissent lost its patriotic glow for leftists who wanted a hecklers veto against those who would provoke jihadists with cartoons or films mocking Muhammad or even asinine own the libs stunts like burning the Quran.

Wherever you come down on the specific controversies over the last 20 years, its hard not to be filled with regret and a little embarrassment by the solipsistic tendency of American politics to turn every issue into an excuse to vent mutual partisan animosity.

Even more depressing is the realization that the last two decades have left us less prepared, at least in the ways that matter most, for the next 9/11. Of course, the next 9/11 will look different, but the reaction probably wont.

@JonahDispatch

See more here:
How 9/11 war on terror was a culture war among ourselves - Los Angeles Times