Month: March 2010

"The ones who want the legislation altered actually seem to grasp that legislation does stuff. To Politico, the purpose of legislating seems to be to go on Meet the Press, or get yourself elected governor," – Alex Pareene.

Sally Satel reviews Gene Heyman's new book on addiction:

No amount of reinforcement or punishment can alter the course of an entirely autonomous biological condition. Imagine bribing an Alzheimer’s patient to keep her dementia from worsening, or threatening to impose a penalty on her if it did. This is where choice comes in: choosing an alternative to drug use. Heyman realizes how odd this might seem. How can otherwise rational people choose self-destruction unless they are diseased? This question was raised in colonial America. Dr. Benjamin Rush, also known as the father of American psychiatry, was among the first to promote the notion that alcoholism was a disease. And he did so not on the basis of medical evidence, Heyman reminds us, “but rather [upon] the assumption that voluntary behavior is not self-destructive.”

Robert Darnton reads old papers:

To appreciate the importance of a pre-modern blog, consult a database such as Eighteenth Century Collections Online and download a newspaper from eighteenth-century London. It will have no headlines, no bylines, no clear distinction between news and ads, and no spatial articulation in the dense columns of type, aside from one crucial ingredient: the paragraph. Paragraphs were self-sufficient units of news. They had no connection with one another, because writers and readers had no concept of a news "story" as a narrative that would run for more than a few dozen words.

Max Fisher looks ahead:

It's not hard to foresee a day when Americans come home and, using an Internet TV system that would probably look a lot like your DVR menu, queue up the latest situation comedy or key in to a live news broadcast. Maybe shows will have traditional ads, maybe they'll be ad free but cost a dollar each, or maybe viewers will get to choose. But payment model would be just the beginning of the changes. Networks, no longer forced to fill exactly 24 hours of daily programming, would act more like movie studios, releasing as many or as few titles as they wished. High-quality shows would prosper as networks dropped the unneeded filler. The market would open up to anyone with a camera and a server host, inviting a flood of independent TV shows produced on a shoestring by directors with broad creative license.

Meg Favreau remembers some of the worst:

In 1994, Prepared Foods (“the industry's leading ingredient-oriented, food, beverage and nutritional product development publication”) came out with a piece in its Annual highlighting failed product launches from the previous 10 years. The article started with 1983, the Year That Everybody Decided to Make a Cheese-Filled Hot Dog. It's little wonder that none of these lasted; one of these hot dogs was called Frank 'n' Stuff, and I can unequivocally say that here's nothing that makes me less excited to eat a food than giving it a name that hearkens to sticking together cadavers (which I guess is kind of what hot dogs are already). Then, Prepared Foods points out, in 1990 there was Betty Crocker's microwavable bread, six-ounce loaves that were purchased partially baked and finished with two-to-three minutes in the microwave. Oh, and what about when Clorox was making microwavable meals? Because nothing says “good food” like a company primarily associated with bleach.

Today on the Dish, as the HCR process reaches a climax, Clive Crook questioned the CBO estimate, Keith Hennessey held his ground against the bill, Nate Silver was very optimistic about its passage, and Ron Brownstein heightened the drama.

In Israel coverage, Netanyahu cozied up with Hagee, Abe Foxman redoubled his rhetoric against Petraeus, Andy Bacevich said enough was enough, Obama polled well among non-right-wing Israelis, and Ackerman wondered what Clinton will say to AIPAC next week.

In pope coverage, a Dish reader erupted over Benedict's excuse, another saw a way to remove him, another criticized Catholic reporter John Allen, another scrutinized the Church's culture of silence, and another cheered Andrew on. RFD writers called for secular oversight while Johann Hari took a shot at religion.

Elsewhere, McWhorter and TNC tackled Tavis Smiley and Frum started to track some serious allegations against Hannity. Our NCLB debate continued here and here. In a powerful piece of footage, Neda's mother mourned her daughter's death.

— C.B.

Brownstein:

Win or lose, Obama has pursued health care reform as tenaciously as any president has pursued any domestic initiative in decades. Health care has now been his presidency's central domestic focus for a full year. That's about as long as it took to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, originally introduced by John F. Kennedy and driven home by Lyndon Johnson. Rarely since World War II has a president devoted so much time, at so much political cost, to shouldering a single priority through Congress. It's reasonable to debate whether Obama should have invested so heavily in health care. But it's difficult to quibble with Emanuel's assessment that once the president placed that bet, "He has shown fortitude, stamina, and strength."

Ambers nods.

Ezra Klein observes:

[W]e really judge the extremism of legislation based on the positioning of Republicans and Democrats. If I'd told you that the Obama administration was going to release a health-care bill that would attract every Senate Democrat — from Bernie Sanders and Barbara Boxer to Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman — and either endorsements or neutrality from the American Medical Association, the hospital industry, the pharmaceutical industry, AARP, labor, and much of the insurance industry (though their press releases have become more oppositional recently), you'd have thought that was a pretty moderate, consensus-oriented bill. Which it is! But most Americans don't think that because the Republicans decided to treat it as the second coming of fascism.

And the MSM is too wussy to call them on their crap.

A reader writes:

Something is seriously wrong with the debate over Israel and the Palestinians. Not only does one side of the Jewish community vilify anyone for criticizing Israel, they reject the very basis of negotiation: it takes two sides. AIPAC advises the Administration to lay off any public disagreement or rebuke of the Israeli government's policies. Why? The Israeli government stepped over the line and put both the Obama and Fayyad administration in untenable positions. Yes, this is the argument.

Of course, in the cross-blog debate over the last few days no one (except the vilified Juan Cole) has brought the Palestinians into the picture. Is this the view of Israel?

That how the settlement announcement is seen by Palestinians and how it undermines the Fayyad administration is of no concern in the controversy, is of no concern to the Netayahu government?

By criticizing Israel, the Obama administration tried, rightfully, to balance Palestinian concerns. That's what really irks the Israelis and their Israel 'right or wrong' American backers. An intentionally provocative question: why is their refusal, on the eve of proximity talks, to consider the interests of their negotiating partner not called out as anti-Arab, or anti-Palestinian?

Or doesn't it matter?