Month: September 2010

Andrew Exum calls out Elliott Abrams.

A reader writes:

After reading your post and watching Colbert’s unmasked comments, not only did a I get a bit weepy, but I sure as heck wanted to be a small child in his Sunday School class.

More genuine Catholicism from Colbert slips out here.

Yglesias counters Goldblog on his suggestion that Netanyahu form a different coalition:

[I]t’s actually not puzzling at all why Netanyahu doesn’t form a different coalition and agree to a settlement freeze—Netanyahu favors settlement building. This is the whole trajectory of his political career, from leading the charge against the Oslo Agreement to rump Likud in a rebellion against Ariel Sharon to forming a coalition with Avigdor Lieberman. The guy’s not a fool. He knows what he’s doing.

I suspect Matt is right. If Netanyahu doesn't fire Lieberman for his UN speech, it reveals that Netanyahu's and AIPAC's alleged support for a two-state solution is merely a smoke-screen for deeper and further colonization of the West Bank, and expansion and war. I fear the Likudniks, religious settlers and AIPAC are merely trying to wait Obama out, and using the Washington media (yes, I'm talking to you, Ben Smith) to portray themselves (ludicrously) as the moderates, while planning a war on Iran, whether the US wants one or not, and regardless of the consequences for the rest of the world.

But then I'm cynical about Netanyahu.

Which sane person would not be cynical about a man caught on tape saying the following:

“I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction.”

If Steven Walt had put those words into Netanyahu's mouth, and rightly ascribed Netanyahu's blithe confidence that America is putty in his hands because of AIPAC and the pro-Israel media lobby, he'd be called an anti-Semite. But that statement is on tape, along with disgusting remarks about collective punishment of all Palestinians.

Here's Jonah Goldberg approaching self-parody:

Yes, yes, the horrid state of American education is an American problem, and to that extent we're all to blame in some abstract sort of way. But is there another major area of American public policy that is more screwed up and more completely the fault of one ideological side? Which party do the teachers' unions support overwhelmingly? What is the ideological outlook of the bureaucrats at the Department of Education? Which party claims it "cares" more about education and demagogues any attempt by the other party to reform it? Who has controlled the large inner city school systems for generations? What is the ideological orientation of the ed school racket? Whose preferred teaching methods have been funded and whose have been ridiculed?

You know the answer to all of these questions.

And yet to listen to the debate this week, you would think this is all a bipartisan problem because Republicans share the blame for refusing to fund schools enough.

 

There are two problems with this canard. 1) Bush and the GOP congress massively increased education spending and 2) the problems with our education system have almost nothing to do with how much money we spend.

There is much truth to his criticism of the left and its approach to education, although Obama's break from orthodoxy on teacher accountability is ignored (even Rupert Murdoch gives Obama credit on that). But Goldberg begins the passage by insisting that problems in American education are completely the fault of the left… and concludes by noting that the GOP, when it last controlled the White House and the legislature, massively increased education spending without actually improving the system. And this is offered as a defense of the Republican record on education!

As for ideologically conservative follies in education, Goldberg should read up on "intelligent design," and ponder the education systems in locales like Alabama and Mississippi, perennially among the worst performers relative to other states. But that would force him to acknowledge and criticize the religious fanatics in the GOP base, and that he cannot and will not do – for purely political and partisan reasons.

Laws that ban texting while driving may make our roads less safe:

Researchers at the Highway Loss Data Institute compared rates of collision insurance claims in four states — California, Louisiana, Minnesota and Washington — before and after they enacted texting bans. Crash rates rose in three of the states after bans were enacted. The Highway Loss group theorizes that drivers try to evade police by lowering their phones when texting, increasing the risk by taking their eyes even further from the road and for a longer time.

Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 12.03 pm

Tyler Cowen predicts a future backlash on both fronts:

On issues such as drug legalization and gay rights, I see a more cyclic than melioristic pattern.  We will see marginal improvements but we won't enter a new age of reason, in either the public sector or the private sector.  The Netherlands is backing away from its very liberal social policies, including on drugs, and the cause of gay rights could as easily fall back as progress.  I believe that many people are broadly programmed to be prejudiced in this area.

But the polling on both issues in America do not seem to be cyclical to me. The polling on marriage equality has been going up (with a couple of bumps) since it arrived on the national discourse. Here's the now-famous phallic graph of public opinion on marriage equality from the beginnings of its emergence as a public issue:

I see nothing cyclical there – just tumescent. And here is Gallup on the other question

Do you think the use of marijuana should be legal or not?

Now I do see a small backlash from 1978 – 1986 in the Reagan era.

But a forty year reduction in support for prohibition from 84 percent in 1970 to 54 percent in 2009 and an increase in support from 12 percent to 44 percent overwhelms any of the bumps along the way. Moreover, on both issues, support is much higher among the young than the old, suggesting to me that, unless legalization of marriage equality and marijuana lead to the social disintegration the social right claims, these trends will continue and even accelerate. I do think it will be vital to enforce legal marijuana laws effectively, and to make strenuous efforts to keep it away from the under-18s, as Prop 19 pledges.

The latest Field poll on Prop 19, by the way, shows a 49 – 42 percent majority in favor of legalizing a drug less toxic and anti-social than alcohol. The Public Policy Polling one before that showed 47 percent in favor and 38 percent against. But any initiative polling below 50 percent is vulnerable, and the most striking thing about all the polls is the sharp increase in undecideds since the spring. 

In April only 3 percent weren't sure what they thought; now that number is 15 percent, suggesting that opponents have had some success in sowing doubts about the impact of the change. Men back legalization much more than women; and the generation gap – surprise! – is huge: 74 percent of those under 34 are for it, compared with only 39 percent of the over-65s. African-Americans are the strongest supporters (but not that far ahead of whites); and the biggest backers by party are Independents (followed closely by Democrats). The Republicans, as on marriage equality, are the outliers.

“The emotional problems are, first and foremost, the utter lack of confidence between the sides and issues such as Jerusalem, recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people and refugees. Under these conditions, we should focus on coming up with a long-term intermediate agreement, something that could take a few decades,” – Avigdor Lieberman, foreign minister of Israel, at the UN yesterday, publicly undermining the beginnings of peace talks. He directly took a swipe at his own prime minister, as well as Yitzhak Rabin.

Netanyahu's spokesman then disowned the remarks of his own foreign minister. Wouldn't a foreign minister publicly undermining his own prime minister at the UN and giving the finger to Israel's most important ally be fired in any normal country? And they say the Israelis have no coherent partner for peace! How does anyone negotiate with a shambolic government like this?

Meanwhile, Goldblog is celebrating the West Bank settlers' AIPAC-enabled triumph over J-Street (which he calls an "ostensibly pro-Israel group"), publishes with no counter-argument an email by neocon Robert Satloff that describes the perfectly reasonable US request that Israel cease its illegal and provocative settlement construction on the West Bank as a "a short-sighted fixation", and has said nothing against the new illegal settlements being built by the Israeli far right, which he has long said he opposes.

So is Goldblog for these new settlements or against them? It's a simple question. And it deserves a simple answer. The anti-anti-settlements position is, as we should know by now, objectively pro-settlement. And it should not be obscured by changing the subject.

A reader writes:

I was really struck by the View from Your Window for 9/26, and experienced a three-part mental process that you might find interesting. First, "Derry/Londonderry"?  I thought – nonsense, it's always one or the other, never both. 

I studied abroad in Ireland (UCC) and made many great friends and travel back to Ireland regularly.  None of my friends in Cork or Dublin or Leitrim are particularly Catholic or Nationalist, but none of them would ever say "Londonderry."  If you're Irish, it's Derry, if you're English or Unionist Protestant (also Irish for some 400 years, but still …), it's Londonderry.

Second, I thought: WTF, Sullivan, pick one.  Which is it?  The Derry of Bloody Sunday, or the Londonderry of the Orangemen and their parades?  It's a mostly Catholic city in the North, so most people there would say Derry, but not all, and not all in the surrounding county.  Sure, the Good Friday agreements has made things calmer, but it's still contested ground.  Have VFYW photos of other contested spaces in the Middle East or elsewhere taken this Slash approach (have there even been others from contested spaces like this)?  I suppose it depends on which community/tradition the person sending the picture came from: in which case, dammit, it would still be one or the other, yes?

Then I had a moment of hope: perhaps person or persons who sent this lovely photo (the stained glass is marvelous) call the place both things.  A couple or family or some roommates in college, perhaps, mixing Catholic and Protestant, happy to call the city by whichever name. One can only hope.

No hope, alas. We ran the view with the title "Londonderry", because that is what our reader called it. Trust me, I know the controversy – my family has roots in Northern Ireland and the Republic (although they're all Catholics). But when Catholic Irish readers complained, I added the alternative. The Dish is not taking sides in this mercifully calmed civil war. But that a simple place-name for a window view can provoke such a reaction shows how deep wounds still run.

 

Above, two Kenyan anti-colonialists, Megan McArdle and Dan Drezner, eviscerate the alleged Republican desire to cut the deficit (without letting the Dems off the hook either). Meanwhile, Rand Paul tells David Leonhardt:

“We as Republicans need to realize that you can’t just cut off the welfare queen and balance the budget. The only way you’ll ever get close to balancing the budget is if you look at the entire budget.”

Last night, in a charming appearance on Colbert, Ross Douthat, with his usual intellectual honesty, conceded the same. Last Sunday, Fox News’ Chris Wallace called out John Boehner on his evasion of campaign honesty – in stark contrast to the genuinely fiscal conservative Tory-Liberal coalition in Britain. God knows I don’t trust the Dems either, but the truth is that Obama has at least put together a bipartisan commission that will report after the mid-terms on how to tackle long-term bankruptcy, which must mean serious cuts in Medicare, Social Security and defense – and almost certainly unpleasant things like an increase in the retirement age or a VAT or carbon tax. Intellectually honest Bruce Bartlett has waged a one-man campaign to argue that some revenue increases are vital. Any conservative who tells you some tax increases aren’t necessary is part of the problem, not the solution. (I favor the British Tory-Liberal approach of roughly 75 percent spending cuts and 25 percent revenue increases.) Mitch Daniels is in the same sane camp:

For decades, Republicans have railed against deficits and debt, but they’ve been too afraid of voter backlash to venture beyond marginal measures (“wasteful spending”). Daniels didn’t get the memo.

Let’s raise the retirement age, he says. Let’s reduce Social Security for the rich. And let’s reconsider our military commitments, too. When I ask about taxes—in 2005 Daniels proposed a hike on the $100,000-plus crowd, which his own party promptly torpedoed—he refuses to revert to Republican talking points. “At some stage there could well be a tax increase,” he says with a sigh. “They say we can’t have grown-up conversations anymore. I think we can.”

The Dish is of no party or clique. But we do care about the fiscal crisis looming, and we will do all we can to highlight those conservatives and liberals serious about tackling the problem and those who aren’t. The current GOP leadership is absolutely not serious about it, will have no mandate to do anything serious if they win the House this fall, and no-one, Democrat, Republican or Independent, should be under any illusions about that. That includes those well-meaning members of the tea-party movement who somehow think that electing the same Republican party will help us. Remember who told us: “deficits don’t matter.”

That was Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. Rove and Mary Cheney are helping to organize and fund the GOP campaigns. You’re really going to fall for their b.s. again?