Month: August 2010

by Chris Bodenner

A reader writes:

I just wanted to point out that the opinions of Mitt Romney and Harry Reid do not necessarily tell you something about the opinions of Mormons at large on this issue.  There are a lot of factors that can affect people's opinions on these sorts of matters, and in this case I think it is worth noting that Romney and Reid are both trying to win over conservative constituencies that have very particular ideas on this issue. I think you might find much more varied opinions on this among Mormons at large than you will by looking to two politicians and then holding them up as representative of the whole religion.

A good point. If readers know of any prominent Mormons who have voiced support for the Cordoba mosque, please send along. (So far I can't find any statements – either for or against – from Orrin Hatch, the most prominent Mormon politician after Reid and Romney.  But his record on mosques looks good.)

by Patrick Appel

Krauthammer tsk tsks defends of the Park 51 project. Kinsley goes another round:

Constitutional rights are not requirements. We do not all have to carry guns just because the Second Amendment says we are allowed to. Just as we all have the right to build a mosque near Ground Zero, we also all have the right not to build one. We even have a First Amendment right to attempt to persuade other people to give up the exercise of some constitutional right.

Imam Rauf and his followers, however, are not likely to be persuaded by the argument that, even though they had no connection whatever to the events of 9/11, their very presence near Ground Zero is upsetting to the sensitivities of 9/11 survivors and families. It is like telling blacks or Jews that they have every right to move into the neighborhood, but wouldn't they really be happier in some other neighborhood, not too far away, where the neighbors' sensistivities won't be offended? And–as Charles mentioned in both columns and obviously feels is important–the governor will even help you find one. That's how badly people don't want you around.

No offense.

by Patrick Appel

In response to my thoughts on Gary Johnson and Ron Paul, Bernstein asks a couple important questions:

Really, what's striking about the Paul campaign is how little apparent success it had in affecting the Republican Party.  I'm not aware of any Republican nominees in 2010, at least not at the statewide level, who have adopted Paul's unorthodox stances on foreign policy.  It's true that some strains of Tea Partyism seem libertarian, but mostly it's just standard-issue GOP rhetoric, pushing tax cuts and unspecified spending cuts while in practice asking government to keep its hands off their Medicare, their farm subsidies, and certainly their defense contracts.  And, of course, Gary Johnson is going nowhere, at least for now.

If what Appel is saying is that rogue presidential campaigns do have the capacity for changing a political party, even if they don't actually win the nomination, then I entirely agree — and it's a very important and good point.  But in this particular instance, I see no evidence that the real-life Republican party (or anyone else beyond a small but visible group of enthusiasts) are going to become libertarians any time soon. 

by Conor Friedersdorf

Reihan Salam has two interesting posts up, one defending the FDA from a Wall Street Journal editorial [correction: the FDA post is actually Avik Roy], and the other musing on the United States and its ability to retain ultra-rich citizens:

Bashing the rich has a powerful political and emotional appeal for many people. For people on the left, tax exiles are profoundly unattractive figures — economic Benedict Arnolds, to evoke a phrase popular in 2004. I think about this more pragmatically. Plutonomy is baked into advanced economies. Without truly confiscatory taxes — I'm talking about marginal tax rates in the neighborhood of 70 percent or higher — large fortunes will keep growing larger, and the ultrarich will settle in the most congenial environments. The U.S. is a country rich in amenities that Dubai, Doha, and Singapore can't really match. So many of the ultrarich will pay a premium to live here, just as wealthy individuals pay a premium to live in California or Paris. But how big a premium will they pay? And how long will our edge in amenities last? 

It's useful to assume that the answer is not that big and not that long. Because if we're wrong, a trickle of adventure-seeking emigrants could become a cascade of our best and brightest.  

One way to keep our edge in amenities is to take a leftier road and spend more money on high-quality public services. The only wrinkle is that we'd have to fund them out of regressive consumption taxes, to avoid driving away talent. My preference is to take a rightier road, and remake our public sector so that it can offer high-quality services at low cost through the use of competition, for-profit social enterprise, personalization, privatization, and other strategies that don't rely on big increases in public spending.

Read the rest here.

This seems like a good time to mention that the US should make it much easier for the best and brightest in other countries to immigrate here. We're squandering a comparative advantage by failing to do so, and missing out on a generation of scientists, entrepreneurs, engineers, doctors, and others who would contribute enormously to this country if given the opportunity.

by Chris Bodenner

Inspired by the mega-popular Awkward Family Photos, Buzzfeed gets pet specific. Our favorite Portland pet photographer sends us an original, seen above.

by Patrick Appel

Seth Godin reflects on it:

We pay the fear tax every time we spend time or money seeking reassurance. We pay it twice when the act of seeking that reassurance actually makes us more anxious, not less.

(Hat tip: Schneier)

by Chris Bodenner

A reader writes:

Dwight Ozard, one of my best friends (who has since died of cancer), wrote an article in 1997 when he was editor of Prism Magazine, "America's Alternative Evangelical Voice," that relates to this topic of Hipster Christianity. The piece was entitled "Rethinking Church To Rescue The Gospel," and I pass it along because I love this line:

For those of us who still believe in the church, our job is not its defense, but its reform…What will that mean? I’m not entirely sure, but here are a few ideas. First, the solution cannot be cosmetic. Simply updating or altering our aging hymnody, liturgies or idiosyncratic language will not make us relevant. (In fact, superficial attempts at relevancy only magnify our irrelevancy in our ever-changing culture – nothing is more annoying than an old guy trying to look young and hip.) No, reform must reach to the core of our vision of what it means to be a believer in America or it will fail. We will fool no one.

McCracken is correct to differentiate between "the authentic and the wannabe." The clearest example to me is the prevalence of "worship bands" at churches. Do they pass the sniff test? In other words, I've been to churches where the people of that church grew up listening to rock/pop/folk music or whatever and the people in the band are obviously talented musicians and have a sensitivity to how to create a worshipful atmosphere. This can feel authentic. But then you go to another church where they obviously have a "worship band" because they feel they should and its a shoe that doesn't fit … and it feels fake.

The YouTube video was made by a fan of Sufjan Stevens' "Abraham," from his Christian-themed album Seven Swans.  Sufjan is pretty much the king of Christian hipsterdom (and one of the great folk musicians of the millennials).  If anyone knows of other quality Christian music that passes the reader's "sniff test," please pass along.

by Patrick Appel

Marc Lynch's contribution to the Iran-Israel debate is worth reading in full. A taste:

Israel, according to Goldberg, wants the world to share its perception of the Iranian threat and to act in concert. But again, if Israel's leadership genuinely believes that Iran poses the greatest existential threat that Israel has ever faced, and that it needs the world to accept its perspective that it is the world's problem and not just Israel's, then why has it taken so many steps over the last year and a half to alienate the world and to isolate itself? If it truly felt such existential urgency, then wouldn't it be willing to make concessions on Gaza or the peace process in order to build international support and sympathy?

Goldberg focuses on a related paragraph.