Month: February 2010

I'm not sure the role the Dish may have played in this, but Palin has now taken on Rush Limbaugh:

Palin believes Limbaugh’s repeated use of the word “retard” yesterday was “crude and demeaning,” her spokesperson emails…

It hardly has the passion of her response to Rahm, and there’s no call for him to step down. But given Rush’s stature among conservatives, it’s pretty interesting that she went this far, denouncing his on-air rant as “crude and demeaning name-calling.”

Why doesn't she call for Limbaugh to resign? And how about his sexism?

Ryan Avent reads through data on global output:

What we see is that countries that are home to about 740 million people, or about 11% of world population, are producing 40% of world output, down from over 50% 30 years ago. It would be bizarre if that state of affairs persisted, and it would be extremely unfortunate, as it would mean that most of the world's population was destined to languish in poverty.

I realise that I make this point about population repeatedly, but I feel it's both important and something that's often neglected in discussions about relative American decline, or relative Western decline.

Culture does matter. So does history.

A reader writes:

One little quibble I have with your reader’s analysis: “but the tide has turned on gay rights–and you won.” No. We all win.

We win the continued service of our amazingly brave soldiers, no matter their orientation; we win a greater realization of the ideals on which this country was founded; we win a fuller application of our constitutional rights to all our citizens.

Gay rights isn’t something that gay people “win.” A lack of full constitutional inclusion and protection for anyone affects everyone–straight people aren’t unaffected by prejudice against gays, we’re harmed by it, too. In the case of DADT, we are all made less safe when courageous and dedicated soldiers are thrown out of the military, or, worse yet, when potential soldiers do not enlist because they know they are not welcome.

I know my first reader’s intention was benign but I agree fully with this point. From the beginning of my work in gay rights, I have tried constantly to avoid identity politics. Virtually Normal was an attempt both to criticize identity politics while offering a civil and integrative political theory (Oakeshottian, of course) for gay inclusion. Few places demonstrate this more than civil marriage and military service – two places where I hope one day the terms “gay” and “straight” will recede as categories in favor of a single one: human.

It occurs to me that one sentence of mine from the post below could be misconstrued. I wrote that Obama

should make his case for a mix that tends toward tax hikes and protecting entitlements. And then engage the GOP on the specifics.

I just want to make it clear that my preference would be for the balance to be toward cuts in entitlements rather than tax hikes. I was just indicating what I think would be Obama's priorities.

Given my druthers, I'd means-test Medicare and social security and cut defense much more deeply than seems faintly possible given the grip of what that great conservative president, Dwight Eisenhower, called the "military-industrial complex." I'd also bring an ax to the corporate welfare that makes a mockery of capitalism, and aim for a VAT to increase revenues. My belief is that Medicare is far too generous to prosperous boomer retirees, while the healthcare system is far too cruel to the working poor (which is one reason I support passing Obama's health insurance bill -= and improving it in the years ahead).

"My message to these groups who are inexplicably offended by a pro-woman, pro-child, pro-life message airing during the Super Bowl: please concentrate on empowering women, help with efforts to prevent unexpected pregnancies, stay consistent with your message that for too long women have been made to feel like sex objects in our “modern” culture and that we can expect better in 2010," Sarah Palin, last Tuesday.

"I love the women’s movement – especially when walking behind it," – Rush Limbaugh, yesterday.

R.L.G. at DiA finds meaning in the Kos poll:

The conclusion that remains is that the Republican leadership (including that media leadership) is deeply irresponsible. When those passingly-informed people check in briefly, for the health of the country, they'd better be getting a few responsible messages to absorb. Instead, people in nice suits with great hair and a television gig—things that used to go along with sober authority—are telling them that the president cares more about Miranda-ising terrorist Muslims than he does about dead American babies. The viewers have never heard this kind of thing before. But this is not because of a once-in-a-lifetime radical president. It's because of a once-in-a-lifetime irresponsible party elite. Blame the bosses, not the masses.

Amen. But this is not news. This is Rove.

Dan Savage reads the latest study on abstinence education:

[H]ere's what the Jesus crowd—along with the headline writers and headline scanners—are glossing over: this study didn't find the kind of Jesus-hates-premarital-sex abstinence-only sex education backed by groups like Abstinence Clearinghouse to be effective. The study focused [on] African American 6th and 7th graders and found that a secular "abstinence-only" sex ed approach that didn't moralize but instead focused on empowering these very young children—12-14 year olds—could delay the onset of premarital sexual activity. Unlike the abstinence-only sex ed programs that the Bush administration poured hundreds of millions of dollars into over the last decade—again, the programs the Abstinence Clearinghouse backs—this study's abstinence-only model didn't discourage condom use or present kids with false information about the risks of sexual activity.

Douthat continues the conversation.

The Administration isn't going for it. Continetti thinks this may be for the best:

Soon a Commission on Question Time would be formed to agonize endlessly over the details. The events would lose their spontaneity. They would turn into the canned and boring presidential debates in no time. America does not suffer from a shortage of political discourse! Let the president and Congress do their jobs and perform the regular rituals of American democracy. And if it strikes the president's fancy, let him meet with the opposition and answer their questions. But don't institutionalize it. Keep the government's hands off question time.

I think Matt is misguided here. There is a shortage of political discourse in which each side is held directly and intimately accountable to the other, and the public can see the critical traction in the interaction. One bunch of attack ads versus another is not debate. One soundbite from talking points in cable versus a journalist trying to get ratings and stay likable is not debate – and gives far too much status to journalists.

I understand how this can't be done within the constitutional system. But it really ought to be done informally. Just ensure that two or three GOP retreats a year are open to the president.