Month: December 2009

AllahPundit surveys the landscape after yesterday’s vote against marriage equality:

In New York, [which lacks a referendum process,] the only outlet for displeasure is to throw the bums out, which made the pressure on the senate more intense. As for why the final tally wasn’t close, I assume the same thing happened here as happened when the amnesty bill went down in flames two years ago: Once the voting started and it became clear that the numbers weren’t there, fencesitters started peeling off. It’s fascinating to think that even in NYS, there’d be eight Democratic state senators who think a no vote is safer for them than a yes. Good luck with fundraising next year, kids. New York doesn’t even have civil unions, so expect that to be the next step to try to make amends. (Either that or a movement to, um, ban divorce.)

The real significance of this, I think, is that with each new blue or bluish state that defeats a marriage initiative, it becomes marginally harder for the Supreme Court to do what I think it’ll probably do and agree with Ted Olson that straights-only marriage laws are a violation of equal protection. Kennedy is the swing vote, of course, and Kennedy has been sympathetic to federalist concerns in the past — albeit not when it comes to gays. But if even New York and California are unwilling to join the liberal consensus, maybe he’ll think twice.

I do think we are in a moment of backlash in a very difficult economic period. But I wonder how Ted Olson would respond to being told his position is the “liberal consensus.”

There are plenty of principled conservatives who believe that civil equality in such a fundamental matter of human rights should be extended to all citizens. The overwhelming opposition to this is not right or left, but religious. The secular arguments about the horrifying consequences of allowing me and Aaron to live together as a married couple have slowly withered away into the final desperate arguments about “corrupting” children by allowing them to know that married gay couples exist or restricting religious freedom. 

And that federal case will take a while to take its course. All I take from New York is that the Democratic party remains what it always has been: a bunch of cowards. And the Republican party remains, with some important exceptions: a bunch of people afraid to alienate bigots. Between the bigots and the cowards, we have the winning argument. And yet in this democracy, right now, argument cedes to fear.

George Packer called Obama's speech the "least rousing, most skeptical call to arms I’ve ever heard." Frum explains the tone:

If President Obama’s speech can mobilize the public to endurance and patience, it will count as a success, even without stirring clips to replay before the endlessly fluttering electronic flags over the shoulders of the cable pundits. Who would understand that better than the actual Winston Churchill, who devoted much of his last prime ministership to the successful quelling of an insurgency in Malaya – without delivering a single memorable speech?

It seems important to me to keep two things in our head at the same time on climate change: 1) the overwhelming evidence suggests grave risks (however hard they are to model accurately) of future planetary distress because of too much CO2; and 2) how we try to rectify this is a separate question and can lead to several different answers.

The Dish has aired the cap-and-trade vs carbon-tax debate exhaustively this past year. I have to say that, as the debate has unfolded, my own inclination to support a small and gradually increasing carbon/gas tax has strengthened. Here is one of the founding fathers of climate change science,

James Hansen, the director of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, boycotting Copenhagen over this very question:

“The fundamental problem is that fossil fuels are the cheapest form of energy. As long as they are, they are going to be used,” he said. “It’s remarkable. They refuse to recognise and address the fundamental problem and the obvious solution.” He dismisses government announcements of national targets for greenhouse gas emissions as promises that will not be kept, noting that even Japan missed its goals under the Kyoto Protocol.

He said that it would be better for the summit to fail rather than reach the type of cap and trade-based system envisaged.

“If they sign on to anything like they are talking about then it’s definitely counter-productive. Any time you start down that path, it’s time wasted. We would do better taking a year time-out and figuring out a better path.”

Dr Hansen, an adjunct professor at Columbia University’s Earth Institute in New York, argued that the only effective way to control global warming was to institute an increasing “carbon tax”, not “cap and trade”.

“We are going to have to move beyond fossil fuels at some point. Why continue to stretch it out longer?” he said. “The only way we can do that is by putting a price on carbon emissions. The business community and the public need to understand that there will be a gradually increasing price on carbon emissions.”

He proposes that the “carbon tax” start at the equivalent of about $1 per gallon of petrol but rise in future years. The tax revenues should be returned directly to the public in the form a dividend, he said.

He added that the world must be prepared to abandon coal unless its emissions are captured and embrace a new generation of nuclear power.

Why is this country's political system unable even to contemplate the most obvious, cleanest, simplest response to this emerging problem?

Grass Valley, California, 4.17 pm

Ackerman is watching the Afghanistan testimony:

While President Obama stressed eighteen months as the span of Phase One, Gates and Mullen had a different perspective: they said 18 to 24 months would be the time span to “turn this insurgency around,” in Mullen’s phrase.

In case anyone is still in any doubt as to Israel's determination to permanently annex the West Bank, prime minister Netanyahu's meeting with the settlers, or rather the "Leaders of Judea and Samaria Jewish Communities", should clear things up. The temporary halt on building settlements does not extend to East Jerusalem, of course, which will remain Israel's in its entirety for ever, and even the temporary semi-freeze on the West bank will end abruptly as soon as he can get past the deadline:

"The Cabinet decision is the optimal decision for the State of Israel in the complicated diplomatic situation in which we presently find ourselves, and given the various challenges facing us. We made this tough decision in order to advance Israel's broader interests. This step makes it clear to the main elements around the world that Israel aspires towards peace and is serious in its intention to achieve peace, while the Palestinians refuse to begin peace negotiations. This step makes it clear who is refusing peace."

He then reassures the Settlement movement of his deepest loyalties:

"The orders are not easy for you;

neither are they easy for me.

We will work so that they are implemented in such way as to make it as easy as possible on the public. Wherever there are unnecessary difficulties – we will reduce them. I intend to pass your remarks along to Defense Minister Ehud Barak. At the same time, I ask you to speak to him directly. It is important that he hear you. Our policy is to implement the Cabinet decision while giving your concerns maximum consideration."

So the very limited gesture on settlement construction was conceded solely to placate the Americans, out-maneuver the Palestinians, make Israel look less intransigent than it actually is, and, in the long run, to allow for future total annexation:

"This order is one-time only and it limits the duration of the suspension. There are nine months and three weeks left. Once the suspension has expired, we will continue to build. I want to make it clear: The future of settlement will be determined only in a permanent peace agreement."

And if Netanyahu has his way, there will never be a permanent peace agreement, just the expansion of Israel in a forever war funded in large part by the US.

The truth must be told: Netanyahu has run rings around Obama and Clinton. And his triumph in humiliating the new president and secretary of state will only encourage future Israeli governments to continue to dictate the terms of American Middle East policy for the indefinite future. One suspects that Obama knows this and is biding his time, hoping for some way to break through. He has more hope than I do.

(Photo: an ebullient Netanyahu by Gali Tibbon/AFP/Getty.)

The first offset run of 2,000 books – which were bought up last month in just four days – are shipping out today to their new owners.  About half of the 1,000 books in the second batch are still available, so secure one today for just $16.25.  Those purchased copies will be sent out on the 9th – still in time for the holidays (click here for the official shipping charts). They make a great gift, especially for a Dish reader you know, or anyone else who might be captivated by a world-tour through 200 separate windows photographed by readers over the past three years.

You can preview the book here with an interactive guide at Blurb.com, the print-on-demand company that is publishing it. We just expanded the preview feature to include half of the photos inside, so it’s worth a look even if you went there already.

The book has views on every page – and their contrasts opposite one another add a whole new dimension to the Dish’s most popular feature. There’s a foreword recalling the genesis of the whole idea (yes, at the very beginning, I tried to call the whole thing off, but you kept sending views and I kept posting them). And the images on the front and back cover were picked by you, the readers of the Dish, through an online vote.

Remember it’s a four color, high quality, coffee table book that would usually cost well over $30 from a regular publisher. But we’re forfeiting a profit at the Dish, crowd-sourcing the price, and although Blurb will make a small margin, we’re still able to bring it to you at close to half price. The model has been so successful, in fact, that we hope to build on this in the weeks and months to come with a range of cheap user-generated books that are able to air topics – such as late term abortion or the cannabis closet – that tend to be euphemized or turned into ideology, but have managed to unfold on the Dish in realler, clearer form.

But few Dish books have as large a place in our hearts as the Window guide.

Here again is the link to buy. To preview the book beforehand, click here. To get an even better sense of what’s inside, after the jump we listed the locations of every window view, taken from more than 80 countries and all 50 US states, in the order they appear in the book.  Is your town one of them?

Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Jalalabad, Afghanistan

Nairobi, Kenya

Geumgangsan, North Korea

Rosso, Mauritania

Beijing, China

Havana, Cuba

La Grande, Oregon

San Jose, Costa Rica

Yokohama, Japan

Dubai, United Arab Emirates

Chicago, Illinois

Oxfordshire, England

Freetown, Sierra Leone

Madison, New Jersey

Kassel, Germany

Huntington, New York

Charlotte, North Carolina

McGregor, Iowa

Yosemite, California

Stillwater, Minnesota

Basel, Switzerland

Rangpur, Bangladesh

Brussels, Belgium

Silver Spring, Maryland

Basata, Egypt

Dallas, Texas

Venice, Italy

Incline Village, Nevada

Port-au-Prince, Haiti

Coimbatore, India

North Wilmington, Delaware

Amman, Jordan

Pebble Beach, California

Signal Mountain, Tennessee

Batac, Philippines

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Ulaanbaater, Mongolia

Lviv, Ukraine

Houston, Texas

Wawizaght, Morocco

Jaisalmar, India

Wick, Scotland

Clarkdale, Arizona

El Paso, Texas

Lima, Peru

Northfield, Minnesota

Queens, New York

Paia, Hawaii

West Hollywood, California

New York, New York

Oslo, Norway

Counce, Tennessee

Istanbul, Turkey

Newton, Kansas

Tehran, Iran

Ketchum, Idaho

Reykjavik, Iceland

Belgrade, Serbia

Stockholm, Sweden

Swift Creek Reservoir, Washington

New York, New York

Goma, Democratic Republic of the Congo

Ann Arbor, Michigan

Kootenay Lake, British Columbia

Buenos Aires, Argentina

Budapest, Hungary

Paris, France

Camp X-Ray, Gitmo

Cairo, Egypt

Windsor, England

St. Quentin du Dropt, France

Playa del Carmen, Mexico

Aksai, Kazakhstan

Palaung Village, Thailand

Istanbul, Turkey

Barcelona, Spain

Prague, Czech Republic

Ajijic, Mexico

Ashfield, Massachusetts

San Gabriel, California

Baghdad, Iraq

Sister Bay, Wisconsin

Charleston, South Carolina

Winnipeg, Manitoba

Seattle, Washington

Washington, Georgia

Butuan, Philippines

Bridgeville, Pennsylvania

Denver, Colorado

Port of Djibouti, Djibouti

San Francisco, California

Telavi, Republic of Georgia

Cincinnati, Ohio

Gingerland, Nevis

Corralito, Paraguay

Cusco, Peru

Wanaka, New Zealand

Gjilan, Kosovo

Cape Town, South Africa

Birmingham, Alabama

Pueblo, Colorado

Northport, Michigan

West Lafayette, Indiana

Shrewsbury, England

Grand Forks, North Dakota

Clyde, North Carolina

Kuwait City, Kuwait

Berthoud, Colorado

Haifa, Israel

Juba, Sudan

Lexington, Kentucky

Ames, Iowa

Stepaside, Ireland

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Reykjavik, Iceland

Nakhal, Oman

Wauwatosa, Wisconsin

New York, New York

Tokyo, Japan

Obertraun, Austria

Annaba, Algeria

Amsterdam, Netherlands

North Little Rock, Arkansas

Admiralty Bay, Saint Vincent

Bretton Woods, New Hampshire

Salvador da Bahia, Brazil

Lewiston, Maine

Saint Louis, Missouri

Portland, Oregon

Miami Beach, Florida

Fort Lauderdale, Florida

Snohomish, Washington

Copenhagen, Denmark

Rome, Italy

Lisbon, Portugal

Washington, District of Columbia

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Crane Hill, Alabama

Burlington, Vermont

Norfolk, Connecticut

Hooks Mills, West Virginia

Prudhoe Bay, Alaska

Williams, Arizona

Broken Arrow, Oklahoma

Santa Barbara, Honduras

Cairo, Egypt

Sanibel Island, Florida

Jakarta, Indonesia

Sumgayit, Azerbaijan

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic

Canandaigua, New York

Gharghur, Malta

Toledo, Spain

Unawatuna, Sri Lanka

Gloucester, England

Mainz, Germany

Brooklyn, New York

New Orleans, Louisiana

Rogue River, Oregon

New Castle, Pennsylvania

Casper, Wyoming

Billings, Montana

Albuquerque, New Mexico

Xin Zhuang, Taiwan

Yangon, Burma

Kobe, Japan

Capixaba, Brazil

Tirana, Albania

Kangaroo Flats, Australia

Taipa, Macau

Sonoma, California

Iqaluit, Nunavut Territory

Jurong Shipyard, Singapore

Mykonos, Greece

Bogota, Colombia

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Chicago, Illinois

Yerevan, Armenia

Charlottesville, Virginia

Oxford, Mississippi

Los Angeles, California

Sioux Falls, South Dakota

Charlestown, Rhode Island

Popoyo, Nicaragua

Sao Paulo, Brazil

Omaha, Nebraska

Salt Lake City, Utah

Austin, Texas

Casablanca, Morocco

Cheektowaga, New York

It's a good question and Les Gelb, via Joe Klein, offers a good answer:

"They simply won't do that. If you stand down, you allow the enemy — even this inept Afghan government — to create a bow-wave effect, to create the impression of authority and security. The Taliban aren't stupid."

Joe's piece is a superb tour d'horizon of the decision. He wanted more derring-do and passion in the speech, as did Matthews, O'Reilly, et al. I just find it hard for someone inheriting a war already eight years old in the economic straits we are in to give a Henry V address, as if we did not know the immense and complicated difficulties of carrying on a war solely to prevent a single terror attack that might come from somewhere else anyway and needs no real weaponry to succeed. 

Obama couldn't fake a conviction he doesn't have and that few adults at this point could truly feel. What he has done instead is replace rhetorical drama with an influx of troops so swift and so large it could alter the dynamic on the ground and give us one more chance to break al Qaeda's back before a withdrawal in our long-term strategic interest. The speed of the deployment (and the CIA's work in Pakistan) is what Obama insisted upon:

The real haggle was over speed of deployment.

The military plans carefully, in five- to 10-year increments, and moves with the speed of a supertanker. A good part of the reason the troops were sent to Helmand instead of Kandahar, even though it violated the prevailing counterinsurgency strategy, was that the fortifications already had been built in Helmand; it seemed too late to turn the supertanker around. Obama kept sending plans back to the Pentagon, seeking a faster launch for his "extended surge." The military still isn't entirely sure that it'll be able to move 30,000 troops to Afghanistan by August. "We'll push in every way possible to get the forces on the ground ASAP," a senior military official told me. But the President clearly believes that the speed and vehemence of the new offensive will be its greatest assets.

Give him a chance. But hold him accountable.

In trying to unravel what the real story is behind climategate – not the hysterical conspiracy theories but the skeptic's valid concerns about corrupted data and the bias of groupthink – John Tierney is, as always, worth reading. But more and more readers and bloggers are fingering, so to speak, the computer code which is the raw data for the CRU results. That code itself seems deeply problematic, which is not so much a measure of wilful malfeasance as of translating vast amounts of uneven and varied historical data into readable consistent form by scientists already looking for a pattern. In that process, the temptation to massage what is unmassageable may be real – and human (as scientists, for all their pretensions, are). A reader writes:

The really interesting story in Climategate is in the computer code and related files from CRU.  See HARRY_READ_ME.txt online at www.di2.nu/foia.  What the code and the Read_me file tells us:

(1) CRU's data files of weather-related information gathered at worldwide sites were (are?) a hopeless mess. 

(2) The programmer applied arbitrary adjustments to the data (he says so himself) to get the desired results.

Perhaps this is an isolated case of incompetence, and other researchers have good data and programs.  Perhaps the research created at CRU was somehow good research, despite appearances.  Or perhaps at least some of these scientists are fooling themselves.

Richard Feynman, the brilliant physicist, in his commencement address (PDF) at CalTech related a story of a famous scientist whose published result turned out to be a little bit off.

As he says,

"It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of the electron, after Millikan.  If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.  Why didn't they discover that the new number was higher right away?  It's a thing scientists are ashamed of–this history–because it's apparent that people did things like this:  When they got a number that was too high above Millikan's they thought something must be wrong–and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong.  When they got a number closer to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard.  And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that."  

Feynman knew that learning not to fool yourself was one of the hardest parts of becoming a scientist. 

Scientists are as prone as anyone to taking part in "informational cascades," particularly when they are being funded by granting agencies that reward those who continue in an established line of inquiry (can you imagine funding going to a scientist who found a climate counter-trend?) and when they are trying to publish in peer-reviewed journals whose editorial staff refuse to consider papers that do not come up with the expected results.