Month: October 2009

Andrew Sprung finds the following post-script:

For why should not our neighbours be as good as we to derive from? And I must add that, had we been an unmixed nation, I am of opinion it had been to our disadvantage.

For, to go no further, we have three nations about us as clear from mixtures of blood as any in the world, and I know not which of them I could wish ourselves to be like—I mean the Scots, the Welsh and Irish; and if I were to write a reverse to the satire, I would examine all the nations of Europe, and prove that those nations which are most mixed are the best, and have least of barbarism and brutality among them… From hence I only infer that an Englishman, of all men, ought not to despise foreigners as such, and I think the inference is just, since what they are to-day, we were yesterday, and to-morrow they will be like us. If foreigners misbehave in their several stations and employments, I have nothing to do with that; the laws are open to punish them equally with natives, and let them have no favour.

He's been physically attacked in the streets again.

Ezra is frustrated:

If the White House wants to advocate for the trigger, fine. If the White House wants to advocate for the public option, fine. But for the White House to host one meeting where they signal that they're uncomfortable with Reid's decision to push the envelope on the public option and then make a big effort to walk that meeting back after the left gets angry is confusing everybody.

Courtesy of Nate Silver:

[T]he pro-gay marriage group No on 1 Protect Maine Equality has raised more than $2.30 million in itemized contributions from outside the state of Maine; this is more than the $1.82 million that Stand for Marriage Maine has raised from out-of-state.

However, most of No on 1's advantage is based on its substantial edge in fundraising from within the state of Maine. No on 1 has raised $1.89 million from 3,766 unique contributors within the state, whereas Stand for Marriage Maine has raised just $677,000 from 422 contributors, putting it at nearly a 3:1 disadvantage. All told, No on 1 has raised 43 percent of its funds from within Maine, as compared with 26 percent for the Yes on 1 campaign.

Aaron Renn says that "progressive cities" like Portland, Seattle, Austin, Minneapolis, and Denver having less African Americans than the national average "raises troubling questions." James Joyner pounces:

“Diversity” is something that’s been advanced as a goal in recent years and which has in turn sparked a counter-diversity push by whites, like [Pat] Buchanan, who see it as a threat.  It’s a very odd thing in that there’s never been a more diverse culture anywhere.  Not only are we a giant melting pot drawn from all the world’s cultures — even while our common core is Western European — but we’re incredibly heterogeneous.  Life varies from city-to-city, state-to-state, and region-to-region.  And “diversity” means more than “percentage of poor blacks.”

So, it’s more than slightly odd for someone to argue for more diversity by arguing we ought all be more alike.

Fallows notes an Australian assessment of the McChrystal report. Paul McGeogh sees the report as proof that McChrystal’s proposed strategy is doomed. Money quote:

“In assessing the insurgency, McChrystal declares it, or them, to be sophisticated, organised, adaptive, determined and nuanced across all lines of operations … with, he goes on, the capacity to exhaust the coalition and to prevent Kabul from governing the country. Much of his report leads to a conclusion that it is the very opposite that applies to Karzai and the Coalition’s operations…  Right now, I’m frightened for Afghanistan – I read McChrystal and I look back over 20 or more assignments in the country since just before 9/11 and my fear is that he has missed the boat.

“The Taliban is stronger, more violent and more in control than at any time since it was dislodged from Kabul in 2001. Foreign forces, mostly American, are dying at a greater rate and hundreds of billions of dollars are being squandered for no apparent return. Public and political support for the war has peaked and now is declining in the U.S. and in other coalition countries. As Hamid Karzai continues to demonstrate with his election fraud and his response to its exposure – the Kabul Government is rotten from the top….

“McChrystal, I fear, has arrived too late – for Afghanistan and for Washington… The general wants a blank cheque for a jalopy on which he offers no warranty.”

What Bush and Cheney threw away Obama cannot recapture. Knowing what cannot be done is the first rule of conservative statesmanship. Here’s hoping Obama is more conservative than Bush and Cheney.

Andrew in his column took stock of a week-long examination of cultural diversity in America. He also delved into the violence that just erupted in Jerusalem and Baghdad.

This Dish profiled another great, emerging civil rights hero. We saw some unsettling images from the drug war, the environmental front, and Anne Frank's window. Karen Armstrong defended the reality of God and Andrew defended the reality of God in sports. And we glanced at the origins of mankind from both major perspectives.

In other weekend randomness, The Daily Show reflected on Iran, Katja Grace showed how generous people aren't that generous, Jonah Lehrer went wine tasting, Thomas Bingham wanted to abolish the House of Lords, Lexington called out some dumbass criminals, and Frank Rich talked about the dual scourges of AIDS and ALW. 

The Dish covered sperm here and here, and two cool sites here and here.  And e.e. cummings would have totally dug YouTube.

Just in case you haven't seen this video yet, see it.

— C.B.

David Link examines the latest Willie-Horton style ad launched by the anti-marriage equality forces in Maine. He exposes the use of the ominous and vague pronoun "they" to instill fear; and shows how the argument about schools is essentially an argument for keeping gays in the closet – invisible and unmentionable as in days of yore:

What those parents really want is to prohibit any discussion of gay couples, period; and that has nothing to do with marriage or school curriculum and everything to do with gays abandoning the closet and being honest about themselves in the world at large.

The existing curriculum reflects the earlier world they are comfortable with, which is not neutral to sexual orientation.  Children are regularly taught that princes can marry princesses, which is no more than a simple reaffirmation of heterosexual love and affection. Homosexuals are simply left out – they do not exist.

If that is all children learn, then they are, in fact, learning a kind of bias in their most formative years. 

This has never been intentional, since the vast majority of all children are heterosexual, and are learning about themselves.  But they are also learning about the broader world, and what it includes.  If they are prevented from learning that a prince (so inclined) can marry another prince (who is also so inclined) then they are learning that princes cannot marry other princes.

More to the point, those children who are, or may be gay, are learning something far more perverse about themselves – they are learning that the world does not include them.  Again, this is not intentional, but as any adult homosexual can testify, it is as real as anything can be.

Invisibility always works against homosexuals who are, after all, seeking their place in the public world.  When the debate is about children, that invisibility gets submerged in a non-sexual environment that, nevertheless, has very strong elements of future, developing sexuality running through it. Whether it’s in the curriculum or not, children see heterosexuality everywhere.  That is as it should be, since heterosexuals are everywhere. It would be preposterous to pretent that could ever change.

But it is wrong to prohibit – or think that anyone could prohibit – children from knowing that some people, and potentially some of them, will not be heterosexual.  In public schools, or in any other forum, such discussions must be age appropriate.  What teachers discuss in a second grade class is very different from classroom debates in high school.

Robert J. Samuelson argues against a second stimulus:

The rap on Stimulus 1.0 is that it hasn't yet—as promised—reduced unemployment. Boosters retort that unemployment would have been worse without it, and more than half hasn't even been spent. Detractors argue that the benefits of "stimulus" packages are overrated. Underlying this dispute is an academic argument about the "multiplier": whether increased stimulus spending and tax cuts translate into large increases for the overall economy, or whether the effects are offset. Consumers might save most tax cuts, or bigger deficits might raise interest rates and crowd out private borrowing.

In truth, there is no "right" answer; the multiplier will vary depending on economic circumstances. In this case, the Obama administration is more plausible than its critics. In early 2009 consumer and business spending was collapsing. The stimulus helped stabilize the economy; it's saved jobs that otherwise would have been lost. Interest rates didn't rise. But just because the earlier stimulus was justified doesn't mean that another would be, because circumstances are changing.

The insanity continues.