Month: July 2010

A reader writes:

Why does he matter?  Because despite all the sentimentality and the cozying up to parents of children with developmental disabilities, Sarah Palin doesn't stand for the policies that will help those families. I am the widowed mother of a nineteen-year-old daughter with Down syndrome. In another six months she'll be eligible for Medicare via SSDI. But ten years ago, when my husband became disabled and stopped working, hanging on to our group health coverage was critical, because we could not have bought health insurance for her on the private market.

We are fortunate; it worked out. But parents of kids with disabilities are not able to change jobs or start businesses or make any life decisions without considering how this will affect their family's ability to purchase medical insurance. The health reform legislation that Palin criticizes will solve that. Most families with kids with disabilities can't afford to put big bucks into HSAs. In truth, Palin's wealth isolates her from the problems of ordinary families of disabled kids.

When she was first nominated for VP, friends in the Down syndrome parent community started forwarding me all glowing articles about Trig, and Palin's commitment to special needs children because she'd been there. He's now three years old, and she is only beginning to walk the walk.

"If Obama says we're not really fighting a 'war' in Afghanistan – we're just visiting – will the NYT stop referring to it as a 'war'?"- Glenn Greenwald.

Rory Stewart continues to believe that the Afghanistan war is doomed:

The only way in which we could move beyond the counter-insurgency theory, or the hundred other theories which buttress and justify the Afghan war, is by rejecting their most basic underlying premises and objectives. Instead of trying to produce an alternative theory (on how to defeat the Taliban, create an effective, legitimate and stable Afghan state, stabilize Pakistan and ensure that al-Qaida could never again threaten the United States) we need to understand that however desirable such things might be, they are not things that we — as foreigners — can do.

Leonhardt clutches to shards of hope:

It’s worth keeping something in mind: The official government statistics are probably understating job growth right now. That tends to be the pattern after recessions end. As the economy is starting to add jobs again, the Bureau of Labor Statistics understates job growth. And the opposite happens during recessions: That’s when the government understates job losses.

Douthat takes a hard look at the long-term debt.

Ezra Klein wants to know why the fight over unemployment benefits extension hasn't gotten more attention:

This dispute has gotten quieter and quieter, even as its results have become more and more dire. The vote last night means that 2 million Americans will lose their unemployment checks by July 12. But neither the New York Times nor The Washington Post are carrying it on their homepages above the fold.

A reader writes:

Why is Kathleen Parker using anything Paul Payack says to make a point? Payack is a hack who gets nothing but eye rolls from linguists. In 2008, his meticulous attention to language had him saying and writing "Obama Barack" instead of "Barack Obama." I shit you not.

A reader writes:

Burroway says: "Of course, many on the religious right would still condemn all abortions regardless of the reason. But for them, finding a medical “cure” for homosexuality would be perfectly acceptable."

Although I don't doubt that the religious right would be quite alright with the eradication of homosexuality, I think that a biologically based "cure" would create a bit of a conundrum for them. After all, their opposition to homosexuality, at least ostensibly, stems from the fact that they see it as a sin. But if there is a biological basis for homosexuality, then one cannot say that homosexuality has been chosen. And if you don't have a choice about sexual orientation, then homosexuality cannot be considered a sin. One can't be held accountable for something they have no control over.

So the religious right would have to choose between their homophobia and the rationale for their homophobia. If you back the "cure", then you acknowledge that homosexuality is biological in nature and, therefore, not a sin. But if you choose to believe that homosexuality is chosen, and a sin, then a medical cure for homosexuality presents a legitimate challenge to that belief.