Month: October 2009

Check out this online-only interview with Bill Moyers.

 A reader writes:

If nothing else, in a minor fashion this renews my faith that my government (hopefully soon to be yours as well) sometimes does the right thing. It takes time, especially when trying to overcome fear and ignorance, but we eventually get there. I believe the same will be true for marriage equality, DADT, etc. This nation was built to progress on an evolutionary, rather than revolutionary scale, and sometimes we take a step back in that progress.

Another reader:

Glad you're moving forward with citizenship.  I became a citizen yesterday – at my ceremony there were 420 people from 55 different countries.  It really was a fantastic experience — an intoxicating mix of pride, diversity, schmaltz, humor, friendliness and optimism……just like our country.

By the way, nobody prepares you for how difficult the national anthem is to sing! Got a bit emotional at that point, I have to admit.

I look forward to screwing the national anthem up like every red-blooded American. But right now, I just feel weird. I know I should be totally delirious at the news that I've been waiting for and fighting for for more than a decade. But like most huge anticipated moments, this one doesn't quite have the immediate punch. You feel numb and unreal. You've spent so long steeling yourself against disappointment you barely know what it is to celebrate. But thank you for all the emails of support and kindness. They mean a huge amount. You were, in some ways, among the best friends I had in this period. The Dish cares.

A High School English teacher has been suspended for having his students read an old article by Jonah Lehrer on the evolutionary roots of homosexuality. A bit from the offending article:

Darwin imagined sex as a relatively straightforward transaction. Males compete for females. Evolutionary success is defined by the quantity of offspring. Thus, any distractions from the business of making babies—distractions like homosexuality, masturbation, etc.—are precious wastes of fluids. You’d think by now, several hundred million years after sex began, nature would have done away with such inefficiencies, and males and females would only act to maximize rates of sexual reproduction. 

But the opposite has happened. Instead of copulation becoming more functional and straightforward, it has only gotten weirder as species have evolved—more sodomy and other frivolous pleasures that are useless for propagating the species. The more socially complex the animal, the more sexual “deviance” it exhibits. Look at primates: Compared to our closest relatives, contemporary, Westernized Homo sapiens are the staid ones.

A reader writes:

David Brooks is twice wrong in his column, and the second of his errors is much the more dangerous. By strong implication, David urges the President not only to reach a prompt decision on troop levels in Afghanistan, but to "fixate" on the "simple conviction ['that the war is winnable'] and grip it … unflinchingly". David cites the examples of Lincoln and Churchill, but they prove the opposite. Both Lincoln and Churchill famously held to their strategic goals through thick and thin, Lincoln's being the preservation of the Union and Churchill's being the destruction of the Fascists. But both of those war leaders were just as famously completely flexible as to the measures which would lead to success. As Lincoln said: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." Churchill bordered on the impetuous in trying different tactics in his determination to defeat Hitler.

Obama's task is to devise the best strategy to cope with and defeat the terrorists, but then he must also educate and persuade the American people and our allies that neither a swift nor complete "victory" is attainable in this conflict, but that "victory" lies in isolating and outlasting the jihadists. I believe America will follow Obama whatever the cost, but only if he can articulate a strategy that leaves room for treating the traditional concept of "victory" in Afghanistan as the chimera it may be, and points the way towards how best to deploy America's resources, military, diplomatic and economic, throughout the region and indeed the world. Fixating on a "simple conviction" is what mired us in Iraq and turned our attention from Afghanistan/Pakistan. We need a broader view, flexible enough to track reality – as Lincoln and Churchill taught us. David's urging would deflect Obama – and America – from this more important task.

His campaign offers a correction to one detail in this post:

1. Senator Specter did not vote in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in 2004. Senator Specter voted for cloture in a procedural vote to bring the amendment to the floor, however he clearly stated his opposition to the amendment several times:

"I would not support a constitutional amendment at this time. I think the issue is being handled by the states." –Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter (R), on the Federal Marriage Amendment, (AP, July 18, 2004)

2. On the merits of the bill, Senator Specter spoke on the floor on July 14, 2004 and said: "On this state of the record, it is premature to consider altering the Constitution, the most successful organic document in history which has preserved and enshrined the values of our Nation." 

Jacob Sullum discusses the hearing for the marijuana legalization bill introduced by California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano:

As a RAND Corporation analyst pointed out at the hearing, a black market in marijuana might persist if the legal product were heavily taxed. But that's an argument against high taxes, not against legalization. Several witnesses also noted that marijuana would still be prohibited under federal law, meaning that producers and sellers would still be vulnerable to arrest and prosecution. But that is exactly the scenario that needs to play out if we are going to see any serious progress in ending the war on the drugs. Will the federal government go to war with a state that legalizes the cultivation and sale of marijuana within its borders, or will it find a way to live with a diversity of state policies in this area (as the Constitution requires)? The Obama administration's move toward a less aggressive posture vis-a-vis medical marijuana, assuming it is genuine, could point the way to a federalist experiment that resolves some of the questions raised by opponents of legalization.

Juan Cole is pessimistic:

Elections in Iraq cannot be held to international standards. There typically are no big public rallies, for fear that they would be blown up by Sunni Arab guerrillas. Candidates can seldom campaign publicly for fear of assassination. For the election itself, the US military declares a curfew and prohibits vehicular traffic for three days. Everyone is reduced to walking to the store to buy bread and other necessities. You can't drive. This measure prevents car bombings of the polling stations.

So why does the US still have 120,000 troops in Iraq?

They aren't for the most part doing patrols anymore. They are just being kept in place so that they can swing into action as soon as the election date is fixed, and protect the electoral process from sabotage by bombing.

Is this rationale really a good enough reason to keep so many troops in Iraq? Shouldn't the Iraqi army by now be able to supervise a vehicular curfew on its own? And, why should the Obama administration care if the election is held or not? Saudi Arabia hasn't held any elections lately and it is our ally. The Iraqis were made by the U.S. to have several elections, and they know how to do it if they want to. Why allow their interminable parlays on basic things like an electoral law to hold U.S. troops hostage in the country with nothing much to do for a year?

A reader writes:

You said:

"Maddow is better [than Olbermann] but oozes toxic levels of smug." 

I guess that depends on the observer, because what I see and hear are unique levels of smart packaged in the most substantive discussions anywhere on teevee (except possibly Moyers but the format is different).  Her format refuses to engage in the false "balance" so prevalent in the media, she always gives guests space to object to her segment intros, she never engages in shouting matches (she got close once), and her approach, after a 20 minute, spirited debate with Tom Ridge, elicited a "this is exactly the kind of civil debate we need to have in this country" from Ridge. 

I  always feel better informed – and am better informed - after watching Maddow.  

And then there's this.

A reader writes:

This summer my son needed to have tubes put in his ears. These tubes are very small and resemble miniature shoelace eyelets, a design that enables them to stay in place mechanically once inserted. The insertion takes about 10 minutes but requires that the child be anesthetized. For this relatively simple procedure, the surgical center billed us approximately $10,000. Our insurer cut a reimbursement check to us in the amount of approximately $900. As per verbal instructions from the surgical center, we signed the check over to the surgical center who then adjusted our bill to equal the amount of the reimbursement. Aside from several small co-pays to the ear doctor and anesthesiologist, that adjustment settled our obligation to the surgical center.

While this is admittedly unremarkable, what would have happened if we did not have insurance, or if they did not decide to “adjust” our bill? We were legally on the hook for the full $10,000, a price that was clearly inflated by at least a factor of 10 in the hope that the insurer would pay more. I am no fan of insurance companies in general, and I do think that reasonable regulation is a good idea, but it does bear mention that doctors and medical facilities are gaming the system too, and gaming it in a way that could easily bankrupt a normal family. How are the proposed health care reforms proposing to remedy what I consider to be bad-faith billing?

Levi gives an interview to the Guardian. He defends her: "She's not the racist type." And he rips her: he has never seen her read a newspaper. "It's ridiculous how fake they are." Then this:

"I'm up to the point where I can't see my kid again. I'm done. I'm sure we'll end up in court. We're definitely going to court."

He repeats that he knows more things about her that would hurt her – but says he won't reveal them. Presumably this means something worse than his allegation that she routinely called Trig a "retard baby." What could be worse than that?