Month: September 2009

Tom Engelhardt is skeptical of the Afghanistan war metrics to be revealed later this month. He makes a comparison to Vietnam:

[N]one of the official metrics managed to measure what mattered most in Vietnam. History may not simply repeat itself, but there's good reason to look askance at whatever set of metrics the Obama administration manages to devise. After all, as in the Vietnam years, Obama's people, too, will be mustering numbers in search of "success"; they, too, will be measuring "progress." And those numbers — like the Vietnam era body counts — will have to come up from below (with all the attendant pressures). By the time they reach Washington, they are likely to have the best possible patina on them.

Greenwald on the way the far right treated both Clinton and Obama.

Matthew Simmons defends peak oil against the oil optimists:

In my view, while Yergin, Lynch, Morse, and Jaffe, are articulate in their theories, none seem to have any strong sense of the brutally grim reality of today's oil markets. The facts speak for themselves: Oil flows have peaked, technology is now mature, the people running the industry are far too old, and few top-notch graduates are interested in embarking on a career in such a volatile field.

He wants a third-party audit of oil fields to help prove oil has peaked. Good luck getting the Saudis to agree to that.

He won't co-sponsor a bill to remove the most anti-gay legislation in modern times:

Frank said in an interview Friday with the Blade that he's not a co-sponsor of the legislation because he has a "strategic difference" with people supporting the repeal legislation. "It's not anything that's achievable in the near term," he said. "I think getting [the Employment Non-Discrimination Act], a repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' and full domestic partner benefits for federal employees will take up all of what we can do and maybe more in this Congress."

Frank also said that advocacy for the "certainty provision," as described by Nadler, would create "political problems" in Congress.

"The provision that says you can take your benefits as you travel, I think, will stir up unnecessary opposition with regard to the question of are you trying to export it to other states," he said. "If we had a chance to pass that, it would be a different story, but I don't think it's a good idea to rekindle that debate when there's no chance of passage in the near term."

Nadler defended the legislation in a statement, saying that claims made by repeal opponents shouldn't prevent the bill's introduction.

"Mr. Frank knows better than anyone that our opponents will falsely claim that any DOMA repeal bill 'exports marriage' in an effort to generate fear and misunderstanding," Nadler said. "But the dishonest tactics of our opponents should not stop us from aggressively pushing to end this horrific discrimination now, as is the consensus of the nation's top LGBT groups who all support this approach."

Nadler emphasized that the proposed bill wouldn't force any state to marry gay couples or recognize same-sex couples under state law.

It's a real kick in the teeth – and HRC hasn't responded. To have the leading gay congressman say that gay couples can wait helps put into perspective Obama's caution.

About time.

Here is an AP story. And a story in the Globe. Readers well know that I have never failed to address even personal matters on this blog, which is why I hope you understand that it's clear and binding legal advice that prevents me from commenting. I'm sorry about this, it's frustrating for me, but I hope readers understand.

Jeff Jarvis counters Cohen:

I say that news was made into a product by the necessities and limitations of its means of production and distribution in print and broadcast. News is properly a process, I believe. Cohen says, no, it must have a beginning, middle, and end, a narrative he sets, an order he gives, a chaos he rejects. […] He puts The Journalist at the center of news. I say the journalist is the servant of news. I tell my students to add journalistic value to what is already being spread – reporting, fact-checking, perspective, answers – but recognize that the news is there with or without them. It is gathered and spread by the people who see it and need it with new tools, like Twitter. Like it or not.

Jarvis also points to a good use of Twitter by one of Cohen's colleagues: David Pogue crowd-sourcing tech ideas.

Amish romance novels are one of the hottest new subgenres, accounting for 15 of the top 100 religious fiction titles sold by Barnes and Noble. The Wall Street Journal has more:

Most bonnet books are G-rated romances, often involving an Amish character who falls for an outsider. Publishers attribute the books' popularity to their pastoral settings and forbidden love scenarios à la Romeo and Juliet. Lately, the genre has expanded to include Amish thrillers and murder mysteries. Most of the authors are women. […] The plot of [Cindy Woodsmall's] 2006 novel, "When the Heart Cries," revolves around Hannah, a young Amish woman who falls in love with a Mennonite and hides her plans to marry him from her strict parents. The lovers struggle to overcome the cultural divide, and actually kiss a couple of times in 326 pages: "His warm, gentle lips moved over hers, and she returned the favor, until Hannah thought they might both take flight right then and there. Finally desperate for air, they parted."

(Hat tip: Emily Farris)

Ezra Klein wants to limit the mortgage deduction:

The economics and emotional rewards of owning a house are compelling enough without the mortgage deduction. If you want to give low-income homebuyers additional help, that would make a lot of sense, particularly given the long-term importance of assets in bolstering financial security. But giving it to everyone who buys a home of any size is simply a regressive attack on renters. Ripping the deduction out right now would be too disruptive, but you could certainly phase in a cap on future home purchases.

The Brits did it and it worked. It's such a stupid market distortion I see no reason why liberals and conservatives can't agree on it.