Month: June 2010

Chait responds to my objections:

I think pressure should be placed on Israel to halt — or, ideally, reverse — settlement construction, and the U.S. should recognize that Palestinian rejection of any Jewish state is the deeper problem…

Now, to be sure, I do not agree with Andrew about the Middle East. I am not sure how far he would like to see the United States go in punishing Israel for the settlements, but I'm certain it's much further than I'd like to go, or that Obama has gone. I'm confident that whatever this distinction is, he'll use it to claim that my opinion is functionally that of a Likudnik. Through his switch from ultra Israel hawk to ultra Israel dove, the one constant has been an insistence upon binary thinking. Before, anybody who disagreed with him was making excuses for anti-Semitic terrorism. Now anybody who disagrees with him is making excuses for Avigdor Lieberman. Thus his assumption that, because I think Palestinian rejectionism constitutes a greater problem than settlements, I must think settlements are not a problem at all. And thus his final conclusion that I'm functionally a Likudnik.

Chait deploys his usual debating tactic: turn these arguments into psychoanalyses of his opponents (Beinart, moi), and dredge up past history. But for the record: I too believe that Palestinian rejectionism is a huge problem, but not entirely irrational or surprising. I favor action on the settlements because that alone is currently practical, and could help shift that dynamic into a virtuous cycle with no cost whatever to Israeli security. For the record too: Chait is formally anti-settlement and did not personally blame Obama for bringing the settlements up as a precondition for starting direct talks. He has a post to prove it, which I missed. And so our differences are both small and large.

Our large difference is in the word "formally". In the context of Israel's continuing acts of aggression and provocation, insisting that that the settlements are a lesser matter than a long-standing Arab mindset toward Israel is practically, effectively to favor the status quo, and settlement expansion. And this switch toward pressuring Israel first is not a binary switch. Many of the current critics of Israel were indeed once strong supporters of it; but the long-term demographic crisis, the increasing extremism of Israeli politics, the rise of religious fundamentalism, the strategic costs to the US of Israeli belligerence, and the emergence of a much more adult leadership in the West Bank – believe it or not, some of us change our minds when the facts change. We saw the new administration in Washington as offering Netanyahu a way out. Netanyahu saw it as a threat to be waited out until a Cheney-style successor emerges, and the real war can begin.

And under these dire and dangerous circumstances, in which it appears we could soon cross a Rubicon toward a global religious war, many of us are frustrated by the world-weary pro-Israel pundits who say they're against settlements but never ever propose to do anything to make them stop growing, let alone reverse them. This, after all, was the point of my post: when will Chait actually put up? And why should we believe this positioning is more than positioning, when it always ends up backing Israel?

Chait could pwn me if he were to say what he'd like the administration to do now, with respect to increasing pressure on Israel to halt or "ideally" reverse the settlements. But he hasn't spelled this out – except he's convinced his ideal mix wouldn't be as tough as my own preferences (yes, I'd use aid as leverage if I could, and the UN veto if necessary). I think what many of us are waiting for from the anti-anti-Israel camp is some sense that they'd ever draw the line somewhere.

Instead we get a concession like this from Goldblog about Fayyad and Abbas. They are

practical men who are trying to create reality-based policies that actually serve the best political and economic interests of their people.

… and you wait breathlessly for the pay-off … but no!

As soon as the PA becomes a viable partner, attention must immediately be paid to Hamas and to the withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza as a reason for inaction:

Twice in ten years they've withdrawn from territory, and twice they've been hit by rockets. They are not doing this again, not until the politics of the Palestinians — and the politics of Iran — change dramatically.

And so Israel just "can't" freeze settlements now. Not even freeze? Would a freeze mean a threat to Israel's security? Would ending the provocations in East Jerusalem really mean an existential threat? How many excuses can be made for Netanyahu until they become essentially supporting arguments for Netanyahu?

So you see the Chait point again: the settlements are not an issue until the Israelis manage to believe the Palestinians aren't out to get them. But continuing the settlements weakens Fayyad and Abbas, strengthens Hamas, enrages the Palestinians and further convinces Israel that the Palestinians are out to get them. And the beat goes on …

I guess what I'm saying is that when it comes to Israel, we are at a critical point: do we push them or not? I say: push. Chait says: wait … for something that will never happen without some Israeli concessions. My default position if Israel, as a sovereign state, continues to occupy the West Bank, collectively punish the people of Gaza, threaten to attack Iran, kill unarmed civilians and take out terror suspects using the passports of alleged allies? Disengage entirely. The US should not be held responsible for a situation over which the US president has no real power.

Sebastian Mallaby's article on economist Paul Romer and charter cities is worth a read:

When you listen carefully, you realize that much of what Romer is saying should not be controversial. A few development economists argue that geography is destiny, but most share Romer’s conviction that decent rules are paramount. After all, Asia accounted for fully 56 percent of world income in 1820, only 16 percent in 1950, and a substantial 39 percent in 2008; what changed over this period was rules, not geography. Equally, Romer’s contention that a developing country can achieve good government by importing the credibility of foreigners fits with mainstream thinking. When Panama or Ecuador decides to do business in dollars, or when Slovenia embraces the euro, each country is importing the credibility of a foreign central bank. Similarly, joining the World Trade Organization is a proven way to import the rich world’s tariff structure, intellectual-property rules, and domestic regulations—and, just as important, to persuade investors that the reform is permanent. Importing foreign election monitors or peacekeepers can compensate for weak political institutions or security forces. And so on.

But Romer is also urging us to reexamine assumptions about citizenship and democracy, and this is where he gets more radical.

In the kind of charter city he imagines, the governor would be appointed by Canada or some other rich nation, but the people who work there would come from poor countries—the whole point, after all, is to bring the governance of the developed world to workers in undeveloped places. It follows that the workers in Romer’s charter city wouldn’t be citizens in the full sense. They would be offered whatever protections the founding charter might lay down, and they would have to take them or leave them. Rather than getting a vote at the ballot box, Romer is saying, the residents of a charter city would have to vote with their feet. Their leaders would be accountable—but only to the rich voters in the country that appointed them.

Dan Savage picks up on this Charles Blow column from a couple days back:

Virulent homophobes are increasingly being exposed for engaging in homosexuality…there is a growing body of research that supports the notion that homophobia in some men could be a reaction to their own homosexual impulses. Many heterosexual men see this, and they don’t want to be associated with it. It’s like being antigay is becoming the old gay. Not cool.

Dan adds:

So straight men are telling pollsters that they're okay with gay relationships because they don't want people thinking they're gay or anything. That kind of homophobia I can live with.

Actually, I suspect we're beginning to see reality come to the fore. Sometimes I wonder whether the fight over gay rights isn't partly a war between gay people. Of course, plenty of folks with fundamentalism in their bones oppose gay dignity and equality. But the virulence and passion often come from those who may have some personal stake in this. I'm thinking particularly of repressed gay men seeking to reinforce the ideologies or doctrines that can make their repressed misery more bearable. If you've lived your life on the assumption that homosexuality is shameful, if you've even constructed an entire career on this (such as cover in a celibate priesthood), and if you've lived a double life as a result – emotionally starved, sexually compulsive or shut down – your resentment of the next generation letting go and leading happy, contented "virtually normal" lives must be personally either threatening or enraging.

Most non-fundie straight men I know, once they get over the ick factor, are either indifferent to or supportive of gay men's rights. The Prada shoes brigade, however …

And an apology:

So while Rand Paul has other issues to concern himself with right now, and while I probably rank far below Rachel Maddow and others on the list of people he might not be fond of, I want to apologize to him and say that I feel like a total shitheel for bringing this all down on him. There are certain things that are simply out of bounds in national politics, and messing with somebody's favorite band is definitely among them.

Newsweek's story about the cult of Saint Sarah grasps the key import of the Trig pregnancy for Palin's political appeal:

Let’s face it: the Trig story is a women’s story, the kind girlfriends share over coffee or in church. It has all the familiar elements of evangelical testimony: tribulation and dread; trust in God; and, finally, great blessings. Many Christian women loathe Palin, of course, and many men love her, but a certain kind of conservative, Bible-believing woman worships her. And it is these women Palin has been actively courting as she crisscrosses the country talking about Trig to women’s and pro-life organizations.

My question is: if this story really is a "women’s story, the kind girlfriends share over coffee or in church", why has no one ever asked Palin about it on national television? Especially women interviewers? Why has Oprah never asked about it? Why did Katie Couric never ask about it? Why is it taboo to ask about it, except on Palin's own employer, Fox News, with her own personal publicist, Greta van Susteren, where Palin's account is simply assumed to be true?

Later, Miller calls the story "discomfiting" but doesn't say why. Newsweek, moreover, reprints the essentials of the story from Palin's, un-fact-checked auto-biography, "Going Rogue". I've emailed Lisa Miller to find out if she has discovered any other sources to back it up, or whether Newsweek's editors believe that a politician's own account of his or her life is always factually true, and does not need further reporting out. Update: Lisa Miller has confirmed that her only source for the story of Trig's parentage and birth is Palin's own un-fact-checked biography and Palin's various statements. There was no attempt to verify these claims independently of the person whose political interest it is to tell this story. Hey, the MSM's job is to reprint politicians' statements, not to fact-check them.

Miller's email in full after the jump:

Palin’s book and public remarks are my sources for the details about the birth of Trig. Despite your persistent interest in the matter, we have never found any reason to doubt Palin’s truthfulness regarding the circumstances of Trig’s birth. Further, I’d argue that obsessing over Trig’s parentage obscures the bigger – and more important – story. In some quarters, the left so loves to loathe Palin that it can’t or won’t acknowledge the real power she has among millions of people. With midterms coming up and a presidential election just two years away, understanding that power is crucial to understanding our political context.

I use the word “discomfiting” near the end of the story, then, because Palin seems to be telling the story over and over for personal or political gain. Thus, a sympathetic, human moment becomes a billboard; that makes me squeamish because a real child is involved.

Friends of the blog Megan McArdle and Peter Suderman got married over the weekend. Timothy Lee was in attendance:

I thought I'd mention another notable thing about the wedding: the promiscuous use of Twitter by the assembled guests. As you might expect at a marriage of two bloggers, we used Twitter for everything. Peter used it to announce that the deed was done. We used it to share blurry, realtime pictures with the world. And we used it for many more frivolous purposes, such as settling intra-table rivalries at the reception. There's a school of thought that says this is tacky and even anti-social.

On this view, people should be interacting in "real life" with the happy couple and each other, not ignoring each other as they stare at their cell phones. This isn't a view I share. For starters, no one was tweeting to the exclusion of face-to-face communication. One of the best things about Twitter is that it's extremely lightweight. You can read and write tweets in a few seconds, often during times (such as waiting in line for a drink) when you wouldn't be talking to anyone anyway. We did plenty of talking, dancing, eating, and drinking along with our tweeting.

In one handy graphic. Courtney Knapp looks at the other side of the equation:

With more than 80 percent of the world's population expected to watch the World Cup, the month long tournament is a(nother) distraction to workers, an excuse for soccer-related absenteeism, and a strain on office resources as fans use network bandwidth to live-stream the matches at work.

Hard to beat this reader's take on boob-gate:

"What am I going to wear so that nobody will look in an area that I don't need them to look at?"

Nicely played. But then everyone should have expected this. A woman who does her bogus Q&A sessions sitting in a skirt so short that she can't even shift in the chair without threatening to show her "political credentials" and one half expects her to simulate the leg cross scene from "Basic Instinct"….Who shows up for a rally for special needs children wearing a tiny jean skirt more appropriate for her teenage daughters and sky high strappy "take me boys" sandals with elaborately sparkled show girl toenails….who appeared at Belmont, arriving late to be sure to be noticed, wearing inappropriate clothing including a black bra under a figure forming white shirt – well the problem isn't that she doesn't want them to look. It's that she wants them to look, so she can then cry "sexist".

She creates the situation she wants to gripe about. It's intentional. It's a way of appearing faux "feminist" while also displaying the wares that got every golddigger in history a sugardaddy. It's a way of controlling her product messaging.