Where Is This Green Economy You Speak Of?

Josh Green reports on alternative energy:

The key to our energy future lies in exploiting two often opposing forces without having them trample or undermine each other: Silicon Valley’s free-market culture of innovation and Washington’s power to set the terms by which everyone operates. The challenge will be to establish European-style stability without constraining ourselves to anemic European levels of innovation. And if it turns out that a Nobel-caliber breakthrough is necessary to save the planet, the freewheeling boom-and-bust disruptions of the 1980s might come to be regarded in a much better light—because, really, who else has produced such rapid change? It may seem strange to think so, but the last, best hope for heading off climate change is probably the same country that botched the job so badly once before.

What Excuses Are Left?, Ctd

Mark Kleiman answers my question about DADT by quoting Francesco Guicciardini:

Whenever His Catholic Majesty Ferdinand of Aragon, most powerful and wise prince, was about to embark on some new enterprise, or make a decision of great importance. he went about it in such a way that, before his intentions were known, the whole court and the people were already insisting and exclaiming that the king must do such and so. Then he would announce his decision, just when all hoped and clamored for it.

Kleiman adds:

If by waiting an extra year Obama can make this come from the Pentagon brass hats rather than having to force it down their throats, it will be worth it, not just from his viewpoint but from the viewpoint of gay servicemembers.

Dignity And Obama

David Brooks' column today is terrific. But he isn't the first person I know of to remark on Obama's restoration of dignity:

He actually would have made a very good cardinal, that sort of gliding across St. Peter’s Square thing he does. He’s got that kind of bearing. He’s just brought back dignity, which is an amazing thing to put back on the cultural agenda.

Who said this? The full interview is here.

What Happened In 1990?

6a00d83451c45669e20115719a35ed970b-800wi

Several readers have wondered what my best guess is for why that year was the turning point for gay rights in America. Here's my best shot at some of the factors, although it seems clear to me it was multi-determined as my shrink often (helpfully) says. The first is that this coincides with a re-framing of the issue in public discourse. Many of us then derided as right-wing fascists believed that the focus on sexual liberation, on "queerness" and subcultural revolt were not actually very descriptive of most gay lives and not the most persuasive arguments for gay equality. I mean: if you want to be queer, why seek any legal acceptance at all? Isn't marginalization the point? Why not revel in oppression as the only legitimate way to live as "the other"?

So in the late 1980s, the homocons, as we were subsequently described, started making the case for formal civil equality, not counter-cultural revolution. 1988, I wrote a piece for the Advocate arguing that the legal bans on military service and civil marriage should be the focus of the movement in the next decade. I gave a speech on those lines to HRC a little later (they were, for the most part, appalled). In 1989, I wrote the first cover-story in favor of same-sex marriage in a national American magazine. By 1993, with the military ban in the news and Hawaii's ruling on marriage equality, the intellectual structure for re-framing the debate on grounds finally favorable to gays was in place. Ever since, the dynamic that posits gay men and women as heroes trying to serve their country or human beings trying to construct families keeps adding to the momentum – and the next generation, having imbibed this new order, are the most adamant of all.

But much, much more important than all of this, in my view, is something the younger gay generation rarely mentions, remembers or honors any more. That was the transformative, traumatizing effect of AIDS on both gay and straight America.

It came in the early 1980s, but the deaths only reached their stunning peaks in the early 1990s – which is when the polling shifts.

Remember: most of these deaths were of young men. If you think that the Vietnam war took around 60,000 young American lives randomly over a decade or more, then imagine the psychic and social impact of 300,000 young Americans dying in a few years. Imagine a Vietnam Memorial five times the size. The victims were from every state and city and town and village. They were part of millions and millions of families. Suddenly, gay men were visible in ways we had never been before. And our humanity – revealed by the awful, terrifying, gruesome deaths of those in the first years of the plague – ripped off the veneer of stereotype and demonization and made us seem as human as we are. More, actually: part of our families.

I think that horrifying period made the difference. It also galvanized gay men and lesbians into fighting more passionately than ever – because our very lives were at stake. There were different strategies – from Act-Up actions to Log Cabin conventions. But more and more of us learned self-respect and refused to tolerate the condescension, double standards, discrimination and violence so many still endured. We were deadly serious. And we fight on in part because of those we had lost. At least I know I do. In the words of Mark Helprin:

He knew that this was because the war was still in him, and that it would be in him for a long time to come, for soliders who have been bloodied are soldiers for ever. They never fit in. Even when they finally settle down, the settling is tenuous, for when they close their eyes, they see their comrades who have fallen. That they cannot forget, that they do not forget, that they never allow themselves to heal completely, is their way of expressing their love for friends who have perished. And they will not change, because they have become what they have become to keep the fallen alive.

Question For The Day

A reader writes:

If Palin is still Governor through the end of the month, what is she doing spending a few days fishing? Shouldn't she be working for the people of Alaska?

She's Palin. Do you think it was a work day when she did all those Runners World photo-shoots? She doesn't work. And she revealingly explained why she doesn't. She doesn't think she even has an office, she has a "title". Like a Beauty Queen whose duties require only publicity. And boy, she knows how to get that.

Huffington Hires Froomkin

Terrific move. He can now criticize Charles Krauthammer all he wants and not watch his back. Greenwald:

Froomkin will oversee a staff of five reporters and an Assistant Editor, guide The Huffington Post's Washington reporting, and write at least two posts per week to be featured on its main page and Politics page.

Too honest for the WaPo. Glenn reprints Bob Somerby's view of the reason for Froomkin's firing:

Dan Froomkin criticizes the press corps. In the press corps, if you’re a liberal, that just isn’t done. . . . If there’s one thing you’ll never see [E.J.] Dionne or [Eugene] Robinson do, it’s criticize their cohort—the coven, the clan. . .  But in the mainstream press corps, liberals don’t discuss the mainstream press.  That’s the price of getting those (very good) jobs. It’s also the price of holding them.

Meanwhile, Glenn notes:

Josh Marshall's TalkingPointsMemo — which began as a one-person blog –  announced a major investment from Netscape founder Marc Andreesen that is allowing it to double its reporting staff.

The Dish continues to grow much more rapidly than I expected, and, as you know, I now have two under-bloggers to keep tabs on everything. I remain a great optimist about the future of journalism; and one reason for that optimism is that some of the bigger brands are dying because they refuse to practice it with the candor and transparency readers now expect.

Palin’s Reset Button?

A reader writes:

I think you are still giving Sarah Palin too much credit. I was struck (as you were) by the observation by one of your readers that perhaps the entire story of Trig's birth including the seemingly irresponsible trek from Texas to Alaska actually only started to make sense if you stopped trying to think about some over-arching strategic subterfuge and just assumed that the whole episode was a BS story to make her look tough. As soon as I read this, I realized that this was, in fact, the storyline that seemed by far the most plausible. In a similar way, I think Palin is correct when she tells the media that they are reading too much into her behavior. You quoted her as saying: "You know why they're confused? I guess they cannot take something nowadays at face value."

OK, let's take it at face value. What does it mean?

To me it means that the whole ordeal ended up being harder than she had anticipated and she wasn't enjoying it at all anymore. She wanted a mulligan. So, she is resigning from the Governorship with no clear idea of what will happen after that, but confident that whatever happens is bound to be more enjoyable than what she had been going through for the past 8 months. I actually don't think that she herself knows whether or not she wants to run for President in the future. She just wasn't having any fun and decided that she alone was going to set the rules for her future participation. If a big scandal hits in the next few weeks, that will mean I was wrong, but I don't believe that I am. She just wanted to push the "Reset" button.

We'll see. You never know with her.