Month: October 2009

Jacob Weisberg unpacks the Fox effect:

That Rupert Murdoch may skew the news rightward more for commercial than ideological reasons is somewhat beside the point. What matters is the way that Fox's successful model has invaded the bloodstream of the American media. By showing that ideologically distorted news can drive ratings, Ailes has provoked his rivals at CNN and MSNBC to experiment with a variety of populist and ideological takes on the news. It's Fox that led CNN's Lou Dobbs to remodel himself into a nativist cartoon. It's Fox that led MSNBC to amp up Keith Olbermann. Fox hasn't just corrupted its own coverage. Through its influence, it has made all of cable news unpleasant and unreliable.

American support for marijuana legalization hits a new high:

Public mores on legalization of marijuana have been changing this decade, and are now at their most tolerant in at least 40 years. If public support were to continue growing at a rate of 1% to 2% per year, as it has since 2000, the majority of Americans could favor legalization of the drug in as little as four years.

Ryan Avent lays out why geo-engineering looks attractive:

Geoengineering seems like the easy approach [to climate change] now, because it’s not on the table. There is no hysterical battle between proponents and opponents, no op-ed bickering between scientists and faux scientists, no global debate on who would and should bear which costs associated with whatever solution is agreed upon. But as soon as it became a real possibility, a fierce debate would rage.

And, if one major geoengineering solution were tried and it failed, it is difficult to see how another attempt could win support, and at that point, of course, we’d have lost the ability to address climate change by reducing emissions when it would have helped.

I think it would be irresponsible not to continue studying the issue and looking for potential geoeingineering fixes, but I think that anyone suggesting that we should abandon the effort to cut emissions in favor of a geoengineering approach has not thought the matter through. It should be considered the last ditch effort, only pursued seriously when it is clear that emission cuts will not prevent catastrophic warming.

Tyler Cowen is also wary.

The latest ad for the marriage equality forces:

Of course, the simple existence of gay married couples is reality. And although there's no evidence at all that the curriculum would somehow be rigged to peddle ideology of any kind, I see no reason why kids should not learn at some point that homosexuality is a part of the world and history, whatever people's views are on the question. How can kids understand the world around them if they are not given the basic facts?

A reader writes:

I am a military lawyer, and my entire career has been spent working under DADT. My main problem with the policy (which I must continue to carry out – it being an order and legislation and all) is what it enables for young, gay servicemembers.

I worked as a military defense counsel for three years (2002-05), and I helped several (more than 5 less than 10) Soldiers use the DADT policy to separate from the service. It struck me each time that the Soldier wanted to leave the military before his time was up, and they used the policy as a expeditious means to an self-serving end. 

I never saw any evidence that my clients faced threats or intimidation because of their sexual orientation, and the supervisors of my clients (1) didn’t believe there were any problems with the person, their service, or their peers and (2) wanted the Soldiers to stay in the unit. I would do my best to encourage my clients to finish their commitments, but it never worked. (I never said I was a good lawyer.)

Take it from me that most people who join an armed service get to a point in their first couple of years where they would like to quit, and, under DADT, gay servicemembers have an ‘out’ (if you will pardon the pun).

I’m no Republican or conservative, but it seems to me that the conservative position would be to take away this extra and unnecessary ‘right.’

Barron YoungSmith previews the administration's long-delayed Sudan Policy Review that Obama was supposed to deliver personally:

It will be announced by Hillary Clinton, UN Ambassador Susan Rice, and the U.S. envoy to Sudan, General Scott Gration. Obama does not plan to attend, most likely because the president's political handlers don't want to further associate him with a policy that has been an ongoing public-relations disaster. That's a shame, because it signals to the world and the government of Sudan that Obama himself is not particularly engaged on the issue, and it's a sad contrast to the deeply concerned speeches Obama gave in front of Save Darfur groups before he became president. (He even co-wrote an introduction to Not on Our Watch: The Mission to End Genocide in Darfur and Beyond, by Don Cheadle and John Prendergast.)

One hopes that in analyzing the trap of Afghanistan, the president has now tempered some of his idealism with reality. There is only so much America can do.

Here's a helpful new survey from the WaPo. Americans overwhelmingly back direct negotiation – you know, what was dismissed as insane or naive by the neocons only a year ago. That goes for 78 percent of Republicans. The flipside is that a full third of Americans would favor a ground invasion of the country to stop Iran getting nukes, including 44 percent of "conservatives." After Iraq and Afghanistan, that's a staggering number to me.

Butters couldn’t make it, but these two dweebs from Leeds will blow your mind. Do you know what I am saying?

Hunter Walker translates the news:

Barack Obama is telling the feds to stop, like, totally freaking out, man, and take it easy on medical marijuana. Two Justice Department officials told the Associated Press that the Obama Administration will be sending out a three-page memo on Monday instructing federal prosecutors, the FBI, and the DEA not to harsh the buzz of stoners who aren’t breaking state laws.  […] This new policy may be limited, but it certainly makes things much more mellow for pot clubs than they were under the Bush Administration when DEA agents regularly raided medical marijuana operations.

I really wish we could get past the stoner humor aspect of medical marijuana.

Look, no one enjoyed Pineapple Express as much as I did, but this is a serious issue. It’s about Obama’s conservative restoration of federalism; and it’s about finding ways to help sick people manage their illness and pain in the most effective way possible. Boomers remember their college years and that’s the prism through which they see this. But it’s about basic freedoms, states’ rights, and humane treatment of the ill. What’s so hilarious about that?

The biggest threat to the end of Prohibition, meanwhile, is not the feds but cities like Los Angeles that have liberalized too quickly and too irresponsibly. Oakland shows what can and should be done: carefully managed, punctiliously maintained, medically serious dispensaries that keep a very clean line between them and criminal dealers. It would be a total tragedy if this propitious moment were derailed by excess.

Jared Polis, the first openly gay man elected to the House as a freshman, has a partner named Marlon Reis. Marlon writes:

To be a congressional spouse, one must be, above all else, flexible. So I was told when I arrived in D.C. 10 months ago. At the time of my introduction, I was something of a novelty among the spouses. At 28 years old, I was one of the youngest spouses in the U.S. Congress. Jared is the second-youngest congressman. Almost immediately, I was mistaken for a staff aide; then again, for a son designated to attend in place of a spouse. More times than I care to remember, I was told, "But you're so young!" Rarely has anyone seen me for what I actually am. I don my "Congressional Spouse" lapel pin proudly and hope each time not to be questioned, yet I still receive sideways glances and orders to produce an official ID. It is as if my story is too unbelievable to be true, that I am an interloper, someone in a place I do not belong.