Month: May 2010

Voters arrive at the Hare and Hounds pub which is being used as a polling station on May 6, 2010 in Corsham, England. Vote early. Vote often. Vote drunk!  By Matt Cardy/Getty.

Massie has a guide. Turnout is apparently high. I'll be on Colbert tonight talking about the election and my beardage. The Dish will be covering the results non-stop as the night progresses. My gut tells me the Tories will do better than expected. Clegg made the case for change. But only Cameron can really deliver it.

Emily Bazelon is befuddled by the reaction of many neoconservatives to the delayed Mirandizing and interrogation of Shahzad:

Miranda worked! Law enforcement officials can invoke a public safety exception and delay reading a suspect his rights to get information that would save lives. In Shahzad's case, the FBI invoked the public safety exception. The agency called in its crack interrogation team, asked Shahzad questions with no Miranda warning, and reaped what the FBI says was "valuable intelligence and evidence." Then Shahzad was read his rights. And lo and behold, he waived them and kept talking. …

[T]he FBI did have its priorities—and McCain's and Bond's—in order. It invoked the public safety exception. The facts don't line up at all well with the senators' reflexive tough-guy posturing. And yet the Republicans have to posture anyway. And the Washington Post editorial page (isn't it supposed to be calmer and wiser?) has to join them, asking: "How long was Mr. Shahzad questioned before he was read his Miranda rights? And what triggered the Justice Department's decision to suspend the 'ticking time bomb' exception in case law that gives law enforcement officers an opportunity to gather information before advising a suspect of his right to remain silent?"

What is the Post talking about? Or was the editorial board so eager to pounce on the Obama administration for its handling of the case that it didn't even read its own newspaper?

The Post hired a stenographer for war criminals as a "columnist". What more do you need to know?

One of the likelier scenarios on Friday is a Tory-DUP coalition, the DUP being the leading Unionist party in Northern Ireland. Not only could this mean unsightly blackmail – the DUP would demand an exemption from spending cuts in an already over-subsidized province – it could mean even more strain on the peace process. An Irish reader writes:

The DUP, the party of Ian Paisley, would surely demand a raft of concessions favourable to its unionist constituency. With relations already tense between Unionists and Nationalists on the North's power-sharing executive, the perception of Downing Street being beholden to or "in the pocket" of one section of the community could bring old tensions to the surface. Hence many Irish nationalists over here hope that if Cameron wins tomorrow, he wins big.

A strong Tory government is rarely pined for in Ireland, but if it prevents further friction in Ulster, then many of us will readily accept it.

Fallows explains the slow demise of the newsweekly.

As often, Shafer's best lines come next to his by-line:

When will Slate die? I give it until 2032, when it will be replaced with a neural feed from Christopher Beam's brainstem.

Exhibit A from a WaPo online chat:

Boston, Mass.:  Here is my question for the Tea Party. What are your solutions to today's problems? For example, I hear the word socialism used alot and government getting too big. But then what would you cut? Or what would the Tea Party members have done about the financial crisis from 2008? I assume that they would not vote to bailout the banks, but what would they do if the biggest banks in the world go under?

Judson Phillips: First, cut taxes to increase economic growth. That works everytime. Second, let's go through the entire federal budget and eliminate programs that are consumed by waste, fraud or abuse. Start eliminating them.

Seriously? I mean: seriously? We're talking about a debt larger than we've ever contemplated outside of the Second World War and he's talking about eliminating "waste"? And I thought Glenn Reynolds was dishonest … Of course, we later find out that defense is off the table. But he does mention entitlements, when challenged further:

Judson Phillips: Let's start with entitlement programs. They are the biggest source of out of control spending. Then let's go to congressional pork programs.

Pork is a teensy part of the problem. He does later argue that social security disability checks are the source of the spending problem. Yep: seriously, that's his one actual specific recommendation, apart from cutting taxes further! Yes, this tea-partier is still drinking the Laffer curve Kool-Aid.  What does he specifically propose for entitlement cuts that come close to the scale of the problem? Nada. And he doesn't even have the excuse of being a pathetic politician trying to get elected. He's not running for office; he's heading up a protest movement against government spending – and he yet he can't offer any serious specifics on what he'd cut that would solve the problem. In fact, he barely seems to have thought about the actual fiscal choices before us for a split second.

Taxes? Pure denial of reality:

Washington, D.C.: Judson — Are you willing to admit that taxes have actually gone down for the vast majority of Americans under President Obama?

Judson Phillips: No

Of course not. And the past has to be airbrushed as well:

Alexandria, Va.: Are you willing to admit that marginal tax rates went up for the majority of Americans during the Reagan administration? Do you know the difference between average and marginal tax rates? Could you answer a simple econ 101 questions regarding the impact of progressive taxation on the labor-leisure choice?

Judson Phillips: No.

From the NYT yesterday:

“You cannot really engage in that conversation,” said Phillip Moore, a teacher in this Detroit suburb who has embraced strong opinions on many topics in his life — on politics, education, even religion — but avoids the subject of Israel at gatherings of his Jewish relatives.

“You raise a question about the security forces or the settlements and you are suddenly being compared to a Holocaust denier,” said Mr. Moore, 62. “It’s just not a rational discussion, so I keep quiet.”

I share his pain. But the hysterics are not representative:

In a survey taken after the diplomatic skirmish of March, the American Jewish Committee — the heart of the traditional mainstream — found little change in the level of Jewish support for Mr. Obama’s handling of relations with Israel. The survey found that 55 percent approved of his handling of Israeli relations, compared with 54 percent last year.

Sportswriter Patten Fuqua pauses to reflect on the unprecedented devastation to his city:

But let’s look at the other side of the coin for a moment. A large part of the reason that we are being ignored is because of who we are. Think about that for just a second. Did you hear about looting? Did you hear about crime sprees? No…you didn’t. You heard about people pulling their neighbors off of rooftops. You saw a group of people trying to move two horses to higher ground. No…we didn’t loot. Our biggest warning was, “Don’t play in the floodwater.” When you think about it…that speaks a lot for our city. A large portion of why we were being ignored was that we weren’t doing anything to draw attention to ourselves. We were handling it on our own.

Photo by Jeff Gentner/Getty Images. The Big Picture has many more. Musical slideshows here and here.

Information Is Beautiful joins the party.