Unfiltered with Josh Cohen

An impression I think, dear reader, has been allowed to form, and perhaps even to coagulate and to congeal and that is that it is only those of us who oppose the systemic extirpation of unborn children that have any explaining to do. I think that is a precept that needs to be challenged from the very beginning. A great many people stare slack-jawed at me upon the realization that I can be a pro-lifer.  The silliest argument I have so far come up against has been "as a man, you don't get a say". No sexism there, right?  Would these same people allow me my opinion even though I'm a man if I were to say I was pro-choice? Of course I am slave to speculation on this point, but I daresay they would. Accepting that presupposition, it would follow that the issue isn't my membership of the unfair sex, but rather my gumption in expressing disagreement. I claim an absolute right to be interested in the condition of the human fetus because … well, I used to be one mysel...

I have been saying for many years, and it's high time I did so in print, that it would be in our best interest to import the wonderful British practice of "Question Time" into the otherwise desolate rhetorical landscape of American politics. For anyone unfamiliar, "Question Time" is the practice observed by the House of Commons where a government minister (typically the PM) is sat in front of his MPs and subjected to a barrage of questions which he or she is "forced" to answer with no purpose of evasion or euphemism. This seems idyllic in America, where the general form that the political discourse takes is riddled with artful doublespeak, intellectual evasion and flat out non-compliance. Spin alley has truly become an rhetorical ghetto in America. This is by no means a new idea.  In 1991, Representative Sam Gejdenson introduced a proposal that provided for a two hour question period each month. In the early 1970s, Senator Walter Mondale proposed...

More than a tincture of emotional detachment deflated from my body as I coldly messaged Ms. Broaddrick asking for an interview on my humble podcast. After all, here is a crucially important figure of history and here am I, your humble "odd"-in-one-hand-"ball"-in-the-other author. I did not expect much in terms of response. And yet, within 24 hours, here she was directly emailing me back agreeing to an interview. An Oscar-winning convulsion of delight, surprise, and intrigue very immediately seized me. After all, to have the honor to interview the woman whose courageous story of survival after having been raped by then-Attorney General Bill Clinton isn't an experience that occurs everyday! She provided me with her cell phone number and we had made plans to have a short phone call the day before our interview to address any questions (the first and only time I have done this, incidentally). I nervously called her and she immediately answered an...

On this whole affair, I detect more than a fair amount of fake outrage. I trust most of you will be familiar with the topic of the minute, that of whether to keep the name "Lake Calhoun" or to change it to the Dakota name " Bde Maka Ska". I think it's a rather silly proposition. Yes, of course, John Calhoun supported slavery. In fact, he stood on a much more unapologetic platform regarding slavery than many of his associates; he stated it was both "positive" and "good", rather than merely as a "necessary evil". Truly a despicable position to take, as I know I do not need to relay to you, dear reader. I should like to ask anybody that agrees with this as a reason to change the name as to what their plans are for the Library of National Congress? After all, it started as slaveholder Thomas Jefferson's private library and therefore carries his legacy and, indeed fingerprints (both figuratively and literally) within its hallowed...