Month: April 2009

Tom Ricks doesn't think that Israel will bomb Iran:

I just don't see how Israel could physically do it as long as the Americans are in Iraq. Hitting Iran is a tough mission to begin with for Israeli aircraft. It would probably be impossible for Israeli aircraft to hit Iran without passing through Iraqi airspace — and they could not do that without the Americans knowing and being able to stop them. Thus the U.S. government would be seen by Iraqis and others as an accomplice of the Israeli attack. The fallout of such a bombing would make life in Iraq very difficult for more than 130,000 U.S. troops, even before the Iranians embarked upon a course of retaliation that probably would include stepping up roadside bombings of U.S. forces.

The East Side of Los Angeles on a Sunday Day from clark vogeler on Vimeo.

Sasha Frere Jones:

Dear Prince, I got your note about the font. I think you’ll agree that it’s hideous enough now.

Jesse Taylor is curt:

Tea Partiers are hoping that if they mimic the energy of anti-war protests and the savvy of Obama’s new media operation, that at some point an actual movement will spawn.  Getting together a bunch of pissed off middle-aged white people with no clue about how the tax system works in public areas will generate a coherent agenda designed to combat the stimulus; if it gets enough media coverage, they will DOMINATE THE AGENDA.

It’s like taping a horn to a horse and waiting for it to alight on a magic cloud of stardust and pixies.

Andrew Exum talks about the military's generational split.

Ed Morrissey fumes about out of control spending without mentioning Bush's contribution to the debt once. I mean: really. Can't you even fake the attachment to principle?

There are moves afoot to retain DOMA's deference to the states on matters of marriage and civil unions, while allowing the federal government to recognize the legal, valid civil marriages in the four states that allow them. My own view is that the federal government's refusal to recognize the civil marriages of four states is an affront to federalism and the constitution. The feds recognized inter-racial civil marriages in many states even as many other states banned them. But I'd be leery of doing much more than this, of extending federal recognition of gay couples in states where such marriages or civil unions have been banned, because that too violates a core principle of federalism.

And I see no reason why the federal government need make a decision on what to call these marriages at a federal level. Just provide them with the exact same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual marriages, and leave the nomenclature to the states.

Why am I being such a gay rights pantywaist on this? Because I believe the federal government should represent all the people – those in states that bar civil equality for gay couples and those that do not. It should therefore stay as neutral as possible. It need not take a national decision on this, and such a consensus is impossible anyway. That's why parts of DOMA were offensive – a bid to boss the states around. Repealing part of it would be a return to the oldest and deepest American tradition on marriage: that it is a state and not a federal concern.

That's Marc's reading of the debate within the Obama administration over releasing the OLC torture memos. If Obama decides to punt on this, or to protect Cheney's dark side from full sunlight, he will be betraying a core, fundamental reason he was elected. Those of us broadly sympathetic to some of the hard choices the administration confronts will be forced into outright, enraged opposition – and my suspicion is that the brutal details of the torture will be leaked anyway.

Please, Mr President. You're not Clinton and you're not McCain. Yes you can.

Suderman deciphers the code:

…no hipster will ever admit to being one him or herself. To do so would be to rock the foundations of everything that hipsterdom stands for. Yet the penchant for denial still seems somewhat curious to me: Perhaps hipsters increase their hipsterosity by denying their own membership?

Perhaps it’s a form of penance for, say, failing to correctly identify an old Flying Luttenbachers song while listening to music at a friend’s apartment? Or perhaps it’s a secret-society sort of thing — denying in hopes of protecting the existence of the order. The first rule of hipster-club, etc. etc. “What? Hipsters? I don’t know. I’m sure they exist, but I’m not one. Not even close! I think I’m skipping the festival this year, by the way. I don’t want to miss my leather-working group, and, you know, it just seems like mumblecore is kind of played out already.”

And as with all closets, there is also outing, which is where the photo came from.

William Galston advocates for HAA:

The strategic question now before the Congress is whether this year's legislation will proceed on a bipartisan or Democrats-only basis. Early battles over the stimulus package and the budget have convinced many Democrats that cooperation with Republicans is impossible–or possible only on terms that amount to surrender of key hopes and core principles.

Before framing the health care debate in these terms, however, Democratic leaders should take another look at the Wyden-Bennett "Healthy Americans Act," the only truly bipartisan proposal on offer.

 Sponsored by six Republican and eight Democratic senators (including liberals like Dan Inouye, Debbie Stabenow, and Jeff Merkley), the HAA would create a centrally financed, publicly regulated private market in health insurance. There's much else to recommend it: Public standards would ensure that all Americans enjoy coverage at least equal to what members of Congress now enjoy. Employers would terminate their existing coverage and pay the equivalent to their workers in increased wages. They would also be required to pay an assessment per worker of between two and 25 percent of the national average premium for the basic insurance package.Workers would be given a new health premium tax deduction so that wage gains would not increase their income taxes. And premiums for those at or below the poverty level would be fully subsidized, while individuals and families with incomes between 100 and 400 percent of poverty would receive subsidies on a sliding scale.