Month: October 2009

If you smell 1993, it’s probably Emanuel. A reader writes:

The whole thing smacks of Rahm. Reportedly he recently referred to activist Dems who quickly mounted TV ads holding anti-public option Democratic senators accountable as “f*ing stupid.” Well Rahm, if this kind of activism is f*ing stupid, why not enlighten us? Why not shine sunlight on whatever dealings a vocal, activist constituency might be hampering?

How many times do I have to say it? I voted for Obama. I’m glad, nay thrilled, he ain’t Bush. It doesn’t guarantee I’ll vote the same way again, especially if what I get for my trouble is hostility to the blogosphere, elitism and condescension aimed at activists, and gorgeous speeches for the wussies at HRC.

I am equal. Period. I helped elect President Barack Obama to amplify that message with presidential action – as he promised. So far: ATNA – All Talk No Action. Am I pissed? You bet. Do I think action will cost him political capital? Of course. Inaction on DOMA, DADT and marriage rights is said to be because he “has a lot on his plate.” Pardon me, but doesn’t having a lot on your plate come with the job description? It’s an insulting justification.

Talk to us Mr. President. What’s really going on?

[Re-posted with fixed links.]

They're walking back the "pajamas" smear. I wonder who it was. Of course, in today's Washington journalism, where anonymity is granted to the powerful for virtually any spin they want to deliver (yes, that means you, John Harwood), we'll never find out. It reeks of Rahm to me. But Greg Sargent also reiterates the untruth that support for civil rights and outrage at HRC's sell-out is somehow only "on the left." The gay conservative and independent bloggers feel exactly the same way. Log Cabin Republicans and gay Independents are fully behind the demands of this "left fringe". Which means it is not a left-fringe, unless you have been marinated in Beltway cynicism too long.

As for a "closely divided" country, here is the latest Gallup polling data on gays in the military:

Americans are six percentage points more likely than they were four years ago to favor allowing openly gay men and lesbian women to serve in the military, 69% to 63%. While liberals and Democrats remain the most supportive, the biggest increase in support has been among conservatives and weekly churchgoers — up 12 and 11 percentage points, respectively.

60 percent of weekly church-goers are more against discrimination against gay servicemembers than Joe Solmonese, head of the largest gay rights group. This White House is to the right of 58 percent of self-described conservatives and to the right of 69 percent of the population as a whole. Obama's base in refusing to end "Don't Ask Don't Tell" is now the religious right, and even more and more of them oppose the policy. Meanwhile, the actual generation that elected him, that built an Internet movement that was critical to his success, is dismissed in this cowardly fashion by someone who lives in 1993 for ever.

This is the Clinton Syndrome. Never again. End the ban now.

Brad Plumer highlights a GAO report against corn ethanol:

There's ample evidence that the ongoing corn- and soy-ethanol frenzy in the United States and Europe has indirectly fostered deforestation and jacked up food prices. A 2008 Science study found that these "first-generation" biofuels produce nearly twice as many greenhouse-gas emissions as gasoline, once you factor in all the indirect land-use effects.  Alas, Congress is tilted toward rural and farm interests by design, which means corn ethanol isn't slinking away anytime soon. Still, we could at least start with small steps—there's really no need for these subsidies, which total some $4 billion per year (and will rise to $6.75 billion per year by 2015).

This heartwarming tale seems like a good way to end a long spasm of dog blogging. And to cheer ourselves up.

Johann Hari gives a useful history lesson.

Conor Friedersdorf is "emailing a questionnaire to various Republican Party County Chairmen" and posting the responses as they come in. You can read the questions he posed here. And the responses here. We tried to pick out an interesting response but the voices sound so much the same it's hard to find an answer worth highlighting.

A reader writes:

I think you fail to understand the true reasons for the wall-to-wall outrage in Israel (except truly lunatic fringes) regarding this report. It is not that Israelis are not accustomed to criticism. It is that in this particular case, something else is going on.

1. There is a widespread feeling of a deliberate insult, felt by someone who is lied straight into one's face. You see, unlike many overseas observers, the Israelis have the benefit of an intimate familiarity with the situation, as almost everyone's relatives or friends actually fought in Gaza; and the Israelis know very well that in this particular war (not necessarily in other cases), the IDF's policy was to comply with the rules of warfare according to the strictest possible criteria, and that this policy was rigorously enforced. One cannot of course exclude the possibility of isolated accidents, but there was an enormous measure of care and no sign of violations on any significant scale.

Moreover, the Israelis assume that even a neutral observer without this inside knowledge would easily come to the conclusion that serious war crimes in this case were highly improbable.

Even the highest estimates give the number of the Palestinians killed as 1,400 and admit that at least a few hundred of them belonged to Hamas. Now, taking into account the conditions of warfare, the amount of the fire-power involved, and the duration of this conflict, it is inconceivable that such would be the overall amount of victims, and such would be the ratio of the killed civilians vis-a-vis militants, unless the army took extreme precautions - far beyond of what is required by international law – to avoid civil casualties. This does not mean of course that this number is low, as the loss of every human life is a tragedy. It is merely an objective proof of the absence of systematic violations.

Now, since Goldstone is not stupid, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that he knows too well what he is doing, and this is why Israelis feel outraged. They just feel that this man wants to harm and humiliate them and is even prepared to lie.

2. Furthermore, the Israelis don't think that the Hamas rockets by themselves constitute an existential threat, as you seem to imply. What does constitute such a threat is the Goldstone report itself. Because, by accusing Israel of committing war crimes even when it fights with so many precautions, this report basically says that Israel is not allowed to fight at all. There is nothing Israel can do to satisfy its critics. Therefore, this report aims at delegitimising the very right of Israel to defend itself, and thus to delegitimise its sovereignty. And this is indeed an existential threat.

Steve Benen backs the administration versus the drama queens like me:

I just haven't seen the evidence that the White House considers the netroots and progressive activists in general as some kind of annoying sideshow to be ignored. On the contrary, I've seen the opposite. It's why my outrage about a blind paraphrase of an anonymous "advisor" of unknown significance is tempered.

Well, here's a suggestion. Let the anonymous leaker come out of his or her closet and tell us what he or she really meant. That should clear things up. Obviously the "advisor" is off-message … so let the advisor recant.

John Cole unpacks the real message from the Human Rights Campaign. Yes, I know. But I am so tired of the pro-gay forces pulling this stuff. As I have said, if and when the Democratic Congress and president Obama actually do something to advance equality – not pity-us hate crime laws, but equality – I will be the first to stand up and applaud. I really want to. So give me something to applaud apart from another speech.

Bugolobi, Uganda, 5.26 pm