Month: July 2010

James Gibney wants to end it:

I don't think we should use the threat of aid cuts to try to bully Mubarak into reforming Egypt's political system, or Netanyahu into making concessions in Israel's talks with the Palestinians. Instead, for larger strategic reasons, we should just flat out cut aid to both countries and redirect some of the money toward other goals that have gone neglected.

Agreed. But, as James knows, the merits of the case from the point of view of American interests barely matter.

Great news:

In a significant step toward an AIDS vaccine, U.S. government scientists have discovered three powerful antibodies, the strongest of which neutralizes 91% of HIV strains, more than any AIDS antibody yet discovered.

Looking closely at the strongest antibody, they have detailed exactly what part of the virus it targets and how it attacks that site.

The antibodies were discovered in the cells of a 60-year-old African-American gay man, known in the scientific literature as Donor 45, whose body made the antibodies naturally. Researchers screened 25 million of his cells to find 12 that produced the antibodies. Now the trick will be for scientists to develop a vaccine or other methods to make anyone's body produce them.

There are three major areas in which spending cuts have to happen – on a massive scale – if the US long-term fiscal crisis is to be tackled. We all know what they are: Medicare, Social Security and defense. No other programs come close to these in terms of spending. So one might expect a presidential candidate like Sarah Palin who says she favors restraining spending to outline how she would slash these programs, especially as she refuses to contemplate any tax increases at all. She has said nothing, of course, but she has said that defense is off-limits:

“Secretary Gates recently spoke about the future of the U.S. Navy. He said we have to ask whether the nation can really afford a Navy that relies on $3 [billion] to $6 billion destroyers, $7 billion submarines and $11 billion carriers. He went on to ask, ‘Do we really need . . . more strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one?’ ” Palin said. “Well, my answer is pretty simple: Yes, we can and yes, we do, because we must.”

This is not an argument – but then Palin has no ability to make an argument. But we have been warned. Her administration will reflexively back the Pentagon in every spending measure. Fruit-fly research? Good luck with that.

It is indeed odd that the neoconservative chorus got a 20 year CNN correspondent fired because she admired an ayatollah for backing women's rights, while they do not mention this:

Jordanian King Abdullah II sent a condolence letter to Fadlallah’s family in which he expressed his sorrow for the marja’s death, saying the late cleric had devoted his life to serving his country, along with his Arab and Islamic nation. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki paid tribute for late Fadlallah, who provided the “Islamic library” with “tens of books in jurisprudence, interpretation and Islamic culture … He devoted his life for serving big Islamic causes in the front line during contemporary cultural and political struggle arenas,” said Maliki.

While acknowledging the big loss in the Islamic world, Maliki said Fadlallah would remain a living example “that we all adhere to.”

So the ultimate success in Iraq for the neocons is to have a prime minister pledging to follow the example of a man whom they call a terrorist. Here's Juan Cole's explanation for this strange discrepancy:

The whole conundrum only makes sense from an Israel Lobby point of view.

It is better, the Israel lobbies in the US think, for al-Maliki to be in charge of Iraq than for Saddam Hussein to have been. Al-Maliki doesn’t actively funnel money to the Palestinians and is distracted by internal Iraq faction-fighting now that the Iraqi state and army have been destroyed. So that the new Shiite political elite in Baghdad reveres a figure like Grand Ayatollah Fadlallah is overlooked.

But with Ms. Nasr, it is not a comparative issue, it is an absolute one. No figure in US media is allowed to show any understanding of or appreciation for any aspect of the life and works of someone the Lobbies have decided must be demonized and vilified (and in Fadlallah’s case, preferably killed).

Does anyone have a better explanation? And, once again, can anyone find an example of a journalist fired for offending Arabs or Muslims?

Several readers have remarked that there are no black or Hispanic or indeed any minority faces in the Palin presidential campaign web ad that has just been unveiled. This is odd because there are usually a token few thrown into the mix. Frum notes this too (although a reader of his finds a sole Indian-American woman in the background around 45 seconds in):

Now listen carefully to the audio, which twice warns of a “fundamental transformation of America,” twice emphasizes a threat to children and grandchildren from malign unnamed forces. I think she’s talking about healthcare. I hope so. But she never does say so.

A reader adds:

The Arizona law is the first salvo in this new politics. In Pennsylvania, where I now live, a Republican state representative from the remote, predominantly white, north-west  region, is proposing a similar law. It now seems quite apparent that the Republican party as a whole, does not even bother to appeal to minorities. This SarahPAC web video exemplifies that attitude. I looked at it a few times, it was web video appealing to the middle-class white woman. We live in uncertain times, people are scared and scared people are more likely to reveal their nascent bigotry. Sarah Palin appeals to their insecurities as the "great white hope" and she does not even bother to hide that. Our press, instead of holding her accountable for playing this racially charged

divisive politics, continues to give her a free pass.

I'd be blunter than Frum.

I think of Palin's politics as entirely cultural. It is about resisting the new America, epitomized by Barack Obama's racially mixed pragmatism. It is about banishing the Bush-Cheney years by demonizing the man hired to clean up the appalling mess. It is about dreaming of an old America  – the America before the New Deal, before mass immigration of non-whites, before the civil rights era, before Darwin up-ended fundamentalist nuttery. It is a kind of new fundamentalism – animated by no policies that one can determine (has anyone ever heard Palin cite how she would balance the budget?). And yet it's very potent, because it makes up for its minority status with a ferocity and passion that infuses all truly radical populist movements and can swamp lethargic majorities when necessary. 

And in this context, we have to realize that the US no longer has a truly adversarial press. It has a commercial press that is entirely driven by fear of losing readers and/or viewers. Remember that the MSM allowed Palin – then a total unknown – to go an entire campaign without an open press conference. She knows they're patsies. She's much less afraid of them than they are of her. And rightly so.

Donald Marron does the math:

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that tax revenues will rise from 14.9% of GDP in 2010 to 20.7% in 2020 and 23.3% in 2035 if current law remains in place…

That rapid growth reflects six factors. First, the economy will recover, lifting revenues from currently depressed levels. Second, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts will expire, as will tax cuts enacted in the 2009 stimulus. Third, the Alternative Minimum Tax, which is not indexed for inflation, will boost taxes for millions more taxpayers. Fourth, the new taxes that helped pay for the recent health legislation will go into effect. Fifth, retiring baby boomers will make more taxable withdrawals from tax-deferred retirement accounts. Finally, in a phenomenon known as bracket creep, growing incomes will push taxpayers into higher brackets and reduce their eligibility for various credits. Together, those six factors will increase tax revenues by 8.4 percentage points of GDP over the next 25 years, according to CBO.

And then the deadly kicker:

Our long-run fiscal dilemma exists because the scheduled growth in future spending is even larger than the scheduled growth in future revenues.

I'm not entirely sure how comfortable I am with this, but Ann Coulter and I are on the same page:

At this point, Afghanistan is every bit as much Obama's war as Vietnam was Lyndon Johnson's war. True, President Kennedy was the first to send troops to Vietnam. We had 16,000 troops in Vietnam when JFK was assassinated. Within four years, LBJ had sent 400,000 troops there.

In the entire seven-year course of the Afghanistan war under Bush, from October 2001 to January 2009, 625 American soldiers were killed. In 18 short months, Obama has nearly doubled that number to 1,124 Americans killed.

Republicans used to think seriously about deploying the military. President Eisenhower sent aid to South Vietnam, but said he could not "conceive of a greater tragedy" for America than getting heavily involved there. As Michael Steele correctly noted, every great power that's tried to stage an all-out war in Afghanistan has gotten its ass handed to it. Everyone knows it's not worth the trouble and resources to take a nation of rocks and brigands…

But now I hear it is the official policy of the Republican Party to be for all wars, irrespective of our national interest…

I thought the irreducible requirements of Republicanism were being for life, small government and a strong national defense, but I guess permanent war is on the platter now, too.

Maybe conservatism can make a comeback in the GOP after all – against Obama's insane notion of committing 100,000 troops to fight 500 terrorists (many of whom were recruited to fight the invaders). And, of course, in a fight between Palin and Coulter, only one can make an actual argument.

John Dickerson assesses the all-vent-no-solutions campaign gearing up for the fall:

Both sides are focusing on highlighting just how bad the other party is in part because they can't satisfy voter anger by talking about solutions. People aren't in a mood to believe in promises from Washington. And, for different reasons, neither party has much to say. Democrats can't excite people with the programs they've passed. Only 33 percent of those asked in a recent Pew poll think the stimulus bill has helped create jobs. Health care reform is getting more popular, but even in the most optimistic polls, less than 50 percent of respondents view it favorably. Republicans aren't offering detailed solutions because they have made a tactical decision to stay vague about what they would actually do if they took control. They don't want to offend anyone, and they'd prefer this election be a referendum on unpopular Democratic programs.

"as a journo who tweets, gotta say this trend toward career-ending posts is a might disturbing," – David Carr.