Month: December 2008

Even HRC isn’t happy about the Warren pick. Marc adds:

From experience, one can presume that the decision to invite Rick Warren was made because (a) Obama likes the guy, and (b) he knows it would send a message to groups like the HRC, and to conservative Christians who might be wary of the new president. Not so much pandering as it is Obama’s deft manipulation of the politics of symbolism. Obviously, Obama disagrees with Rick Warren on important issues. He has said so, many times, and publicly.  And he agrees with him on other important issues. And ignoring something like Warren, a mainstream figure who commands the respect of million of Americans, would be foolish. Obama’s message is: Rick Warren is a part of Obama’s America, too.

He sure is. And that’s something one understands. Which is why it seems important to me that Obama at some point offer gay couples and gay servicemembers something a little better than symbolism in the next four years. Like: a federal civil unions bill and the end to the military ban.

Ta-Nehisi quibbles with Ross.

"She reads poetry. Anyone who doesn’t think that’s relevant needs to be reminded of William Carlos Williams’ observation: ‘It is difficult to get the news from poems, yet men die miserably every day for the lack of what is found there,’" – Geraldine Brooks, explaining why Caroline Kennedy deserves a Senate seat.

(Hat tip: Ken Silverstein)

Publius outlines why Caroline Kennedy seeking the senate doesn’t sit right:

What makes the Caroline Kennedy business smell bad, then, is that it creates the appearance that the Kennedy crew is using their "early endorsement" capital primarily to get one of their own appointed to the Senate. The benefit they seem to be seeking is purely private. Plus, it’s not like the NY Senate is an "under the radar" position. It’s so extremely high profile and in everyone’s face that it becomes obnoxious.

Jack Shafer tells journalists to stop whining:

The misery of a laid-off or bought-out journalist isn’t greater than that of a sacked bond trader, a RIF-ed clerk, or a fired autoworker. The only reason we’re so well-informed about journalists’ suffering is they have easy access to a megaphone.

He sighs:

I keep waiting for one of these distressed, failing newspapers to realize that it has nothing to lose and get a little crazy and create something brand new and brilliant for readers and advertisers. I keep being disappointed.

There goes Jack again, sucking up to his peer group.

Jim Burroway is understandably pissed about Rick Warren being chosen to deliver the invocation:

This is the same Rick Warren who recently said that the relationships of his “many gay friends” are no different from child rape, incest or polygamy… Warren himself has acknowledged that the only difference between himself and Focus On the Family’s James Dobson is just “a matter of tone.”  So given President-elect Obama’s stated commitment to bringing the country together, it’s hard to fathom the reasoning behind choosing such a divisive figure. What’s worse, this decision to include Warren revives memories of the controversy surrounding ex-gay advocate Donnie McClurkin’s partication in a Obama campaign event in South Carolina during the primaries.

I think the choice of Warren is almost certainly designed, in fact, as a unifying move – and it is a signal that Obama has every intention of reaching out to Christianists who have some liberal leanings on poverty, the environment, and heterosexual HIV and AIDS. (Check out the last time Rick Warren reached out to gay people with HIV or AIDS.) I understand where Obama’s coming from, and I don’t think this is an inherently bad idea. Building such a liberal Christianist coalition is something I saw coming, and sadly see no way to avoid.

But not on the backs of gay people, please, Mr president-elect. Wedge politics is wedge politics, whether practised by Clintons, Bushes, or, yes, Obama.

A reader writes:

Manzi’s glossing over a lot here.

First, the price impulse in the 1970s was inflated away pretty quickly – I recall 10-15% annual inflation in the late 70s, so that within 4 years of 1979, the price of gas had lost half of its impulse value. The price increases we’ve seen recently have also been pretty short lived – gas was cheap (< $2.00/G) as recently as 1/2007, and it is cheap again. And it only crossed $3.20/G as of February of this year.

Second, saying that the US average population density is 1/7th of Germany’s glosses over the details of distribution. We have huge empty states (Wyoming, Montana, the Dakotas for example) that will never have serious mass transit, but also have few people, burn little gas but push down our population density.

I live in Pittsburgh, and we have very poor mass transit unless you’re going to downtown Pittsburgh, but a $2/G gas tax would certainly bring in enough money to create some real options along the busiest corridors (279 / 79 / 376 West).

Furthermore, money from that tax could also provide incentives for subsidizing plug-in hybrids and other cars that get better gas mileage. And it would increase the motivation for people to buy smaller and more efficient cars. The technological options available now, in short, are much greater than available during the 1970s.

We could also put more of an emphasis in new nuclear plants, further reducing our carbon footprint in general, and for powering plug-in hybrids specifically.

It wouldn’t surprise me if a combination of increased use of nuclear power, plug-in hybrids, and targeted mass transmit improvements couldn’t reduce the oil consumed in a medium sized city like Pittsburgh by 25-40%. And a significant gas tax would definitely be an important factor in hitting that number.

The complicity of lawyers in enabling government torture and abuse of prisoners is real. And the precedents that the US once set in prosecuting them clear:

The United States used to not only investigate attorneys for their role in the perpetuation of war crimes—it used to prosecute them. After World War II, as part of the Nuremberg trials, the United States prosecuted 16 German attorneys and judges for war crimes and crimes against humanity for their role in implementing the "Night and Fog" decree. Three of the defendants in the so-called "Justice Case" held positions in the Ministry of Justice and directly advised the justice minister. These attorneys also drafted laws and rules for the administration of German-occupied lands and the operations of certain special courts. Many of these laws—and the courts themselves—ran afoul of the Geneva Conventions. The German lawyers argued, in their defense, that the Conventions did not apply because their enemies did not subscribe to them. They were ultimately convicted of war crimes and were each sentenced to 10 years in prison. (A more complete discussion of these cases is available here.)

Why does AEI employ and give legitimacy to a war criminal, who defended the crushing of an innocent child’s testicles as legal?