Month: October 2010

Aaron Sorkin lui-meme responds to a blog-commenter on the portrayal of women in The Social Network, criticized by Dana McCourt here:

Believe me, I get it. It's not hard to understand how bright women could be appalled by what they saw in the movie but you have to understand that that was the very specific world I was writing about… Mark's blogging that we hear in voiceover as he drinks, hacks, creates Facemash and dreams of the kind of party he's sure he's missing, came directly from Mark's blog. With the exception of doing some cuts and tightening (and I can promise you that nothing that I cut would have changed your perception of the people or the trajectory of the story by even an inch) I used Mark's blog verbatim. Mark said, "Erica Albright's a bitch" (Erica isn't her real name–I changed three names in the movie when there was no need to embarrass anyone further), "Do you think that's because all B.U. girls are bitches?"

Facebook was born during a night of incredibly misogyny.

The idea of comparing women to farm animals, and then to each other, based on their looks and then publicly ranking them. It was a revenge stunt, aimed first at the woman who'd most recently broke his heart (who should get some kind of medal for not breaking his head) and then at the entire female population of Harvard.

More generally, I was writing about a very angry and deeply misogynistic group of people. These aren't the cuddly nerds we made movies about in the 80's. They're very angry that the cheerleader still wants to go out with the quarterback instead of the men (boys) who are running the universe right now. The women they surround themselves with aren't women who challenge them (and frankly, no woman who could challenge them would be interested in being anywhere near them.)

And this very disturbing attitude toward women isn't just confined to the guys who can't get dates.

 

The rest is here. None of it addresses the real factual questions raised here by Irin Carmon.

Jonathan Chait complains that conservatives are ignoring history when they comment on the expiration of the Bush tax cuts:

In 1993, conservatives unanimously predicted that Bill Clinton's tax increase on incomes over $200,000 would slow growth, reduce tax revenues, and likely cause a recession. Instead, of course, the economy boomed and revenue skyrocketed. Then George W. Bush cut upper-bracket tax rates, and conservatives predicted that this would cause the economy to grow even faster. Instead, the economy experienced the first business cycle where income was lower at the peak of the business cycle than it had been at the peak of the previous business cycle. It is rare that events so utterly repudiate an economic theory. None of this evidence has penetrated the conservative mind to the slightest degree. Reading the right-wing press, it is exactly as true today as it was 18 years ago that reducing Clinton-era upper-bracket tax rates holds the key to economic growth.

Despite reading Greg Mankiw, Reihan remains worried about what an increase in marginal tax rates will do to work incentives, and offers this proposal:

…let's focus on wasteful, duplicative, ineffective, and unwarranted spending first, reduce tax expenditures second, and then and only then consider raising the overall tax burden.

And have unicorns over for tea. In an ideal world, Reihan is right.

In reality, even the Tories are raising taxes because any attempt to tackle the debt realistically requires that. The Bush tax cuts became unaffordable as soon as we launched two wars. They were designed to end now. They are way lower than anything before Reagan, and the money has to be found somewhere. And what are the odds that the GOP will find $700 billion in "waste" next year? C'mon.

I think the ideal balance is roughly $2 of spending cuts for $1 of tax hikes. Most of the tax hike is going to come from people like me; and I don't like it, and do think it adds a disincentive to work harder. But I also realize that spending cuts in entitlements will hurt many and we're all in this together (or should be). If we don't do something serious soon, the US will default, and these worries will seem puny. And there's no one's income left to tax but the successful's – and a gas tax or VAT (the better options) seem totally unacceptable to most Americans. So let's get on with it, and stop this 1980s posturing. It's 2010, guys. Wake the fuck up.

Noah Shachtman notes a sharp spike in air strikes in Afghanistan:

>Last month, NATO attack planes dropped their bombs and fired their guns on 700 separate missions, according to U.S. Air Force statistics. That’s more than double the 257 attack sorties they flew in September 2009, and one of the highest single-month totals of the entire nine-year Afghan campaign…

There have been one-time spikes in air strikes before — even under McChrystal, who famously curbed the attacks. And, of course, some of the added strikes can be explained by the fact that there are now more soldiers and Marines in harm’s way. Some portion of those ground forces will invariably call for air support. But since Petraeus took over the Afghan campaign, every month has seen an increase in airstrikes. And every every increase has been bigger than the previous month’s. Welcome to Afghanistan’s new, lethal air war.

Interesting, no? What matters militarily is whether we are taking out core Taliban/al Qaeda Jihadists without civilian casualties amounting to war crimes or blowback. I don't know the answer to that right now. I sure hope it's as surgical as these things can be.

But what this massive new air assault suggests to me – and I'm just speculating here – is that this is an attempt to generate as much leverage over the Taliban to secure as face-saving a political formula for withdrawal next year. If you think of Petraeus as the great counter-insurgency master, it doesn't make that much sense for him to reverse McChrystal's relative restraint on air strikes. But if you think of Petraeus as a political figure, helping presidents get out of military quagmires with minimal political damage – hence the "surge" myth – then it makes total sense. It may be that this kind of massive assault is the only thing to halt the Taliban's momentum, and thereby get them to the table without capitulation. No president wants to be seen to capitulate – which is why Vietnam lasted so long.

And, of course, I hope it works. If we cannot "win" in Afghanistan any more than we "won" in Iraq, then face-saving is not a dishonorable alternative. It just requires a certain amount of bullshit to describe with a straight face. Somehow, I suspect Washington is up to the task.

Hitchens unpacks the root of the problem some more:

I could introduce you to dozens of enthusiastic and intelligent people, highly aware of "the issues" and very well-informed on all questions from human rights to world trade to counterinsurgency, to none of whom it would occur to subject themselves to what passes for the political "arena." They are willing to give up potentially more lucrative careers in order to work on important questions and expand the limits of what is currently thinkable politically, but the great honor and distinction of serving their country in the legislature is only offered to them at a price that is now way too steep.

Consider: What normal person would consider risking their career and their family life in order to undergo the incessant barrage of intrusive questioning about every aspect of their lives since well before college? To face the constant pettifogging and chatter of Facebook and Twitter and have to boast of how many false friends they had made in a weird cyberland? And if only that was the least of it.

Then comes the treadmill of fundraising and the unending tyranny of the opinion polls, which many media systems now use as a substitute for news and as a means of creating stories rather than reporting them. And, even if it "works," most of your time in Washington would be spent raising the dough to hang on to your job. No wonder that the best lack all conviction.

(Hat tip: Goddard)

Scott Morgan taunts law-makers over cannabis reform:

If public officials don't want to see laws enacted by popular vote, then the obvious solution is to go ahead and fix failed policies instead of endeavoring desperately to defend them year after year. Given the popularity of Prop 19, there's no reason California legislators couldn't have enacted some of these reforms a long time ago. The same goes for every other state where polling shows strong support for significant marijuana reforms. Unless legislators begin taking the issue seriously, the next generation of marijuana laws will be written by activists.

Increasingly, it seems to me, the legislative branch is really not about legislating. It's about getting re-elected with often symbolic partisan gestures and passing laws to benefit those interests that will get you re-elected. Serious attempts to take collective bipartisan responsibility for state and federal debt, for example, seem rare. That's what commissions are for, apparently! But what's a legislature responsible for if not the budget it passes?

Ditto on something like Don't Ask, Don't Tell, of course. But then, I guess, when legislators do take a stand, as they did in California on marriage equality, they get vetoed or side-swiped by initiatives. And when they do tackle a momentous and complicated issue like health insurance reform and achieve something, they get demagogued. They won't try to solve that kind of problem again, will they?

Sigh.

The text is quite something:

I am Carl Paladino, a father, a husband, a builder and a business owner. I am neither perfect, nor a career politician. I have made mistakes in this campaign – I have made mistakes all my life- as we all have. I am what I am – a simple man who works hard, trusts others, and loves his family and fears for the future of our State.

Yesterday I was handed a script. I redacted some contents that were unacceptable. I did also say some things for which I should have chosen better words. I said other things that the press misinterpreted and misstated. I sincerely apologize for any comment that may have offended the Gay and Lesbian Community or their family members. Any reference to branding an entire community based on a small representation of them is wrong. My personal beliefs are:

1) I am a live and let live person.

2) I am 100% against discrimination of any group. I oppose discrimination of any kind in housing, credit, insurance benefits or visitation.

3) I am 100% against hate crimes in any form.

4) I am in support of civil agreements and equal rights for all citizens.

5) My position on marriage is based on my personal views. I have the same position on this issue as President Barrack Obama. I have previously stated I would support a referendum by New York voters. I have proposed Initiative and Referendum so New Yorkers can decide important issues like this.

6) The portrayal of me as anti-gay is inconsistent with my lifelong beliefs and actions and my prior history as an father, employer and friend to many in the gay and lesbian community.

I am concerned with the future for all our citizens, gay, straight, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and Muslim and Agnostic. Although I am not perfect I do admit my mistakes. I will reach out to leaders of the gay community to educate me on how to better represent my support for the rights of all citizens. If elected as your governor I will stand and fight for all gay New Yorkers rights. I ask you for forgiveness on my poorly chosen words and the publication by others not involved with our campaign of unredacted script that did not reflect my oral statement or match my personal feelings. Please go to my website http://www.paladinoforthepeople.com to learn more detail about the issues including my staunch support for civil rights for all New Yorkers.

Notice how Barack Obama’s opposition to marriage equality is used by others. There are costs to pragmatism.

Today on the Dish, the Log Cabin Republicans trapped Obama on DADT, Andrew butchered Paladino's perverted speech and Steinglass thought he just blew his chances. Andrew reminisced about the past ten years of blogging and apologized again for his "fifth column" remarks. For the anniversary he appeared on Charlie Rose, and readers offered their two-cents.

Sarah Palin wanted war with Iran and she rehabilitated the odd lie about the death panel that is out to get her family. Andrew prodded Obama to fight the fiscal fight, and Ilya Somin doubted a burqa ban could stop radical thoughts. Goldblog shot down Pamela Gellar's obsession with a Muslim takeover, we analyzed the semantics of calling people "illegals," and Tim Cavanaugh mocked politicians who promise things they can't deliver. Democrat Joe Manchin took a rifle to cap and trade, and Beinart patted down Obama's new national security adviser Tom Donilon. Dan Savage asked Valerie Jarrett to put her money where her mouth was at the HRC dinner, and Benjamin Dueholm wagged his finger at Savage for attacking all Christians for the sins of a few.

Will Wilkinson wanted more rules for government's oversight of the economy, and James Poulos didn't know who was going to offer up undergoing the pain of fiscal conservatism. John Carney tracked the banks' inability to trace their own steps in the mortgage debacle, and Tyler Cowen targeted systemic economic biases. Readers ignited a debate over how bad pot is for teenagers, Balko attacked Woodrow Wilson, and the GOP's reluctance to admit the truth about climate change was preventing the world from fixing it. Canadians don't travel to the U.S. for health care, British conventions are small affairs compared to their American counterparts, and water in a box didn't master the tap yet. We stared at Hot Guys on Judge Judy, Ebert and O'Hehir went at it over a horse movie, and women had a role in creating Facebook, even if the film doesn't portray that. VFYW here, MHB here, FOTD here, Yglesias award here, correction of the day here, and the VFYW contest winner #19 here.

–Z.P.

 Ta-Nehisi tries to explain Paladino's ignorance:

 

Ezra Klein's two cents:

The people who need to be convinced of comprehensive immigration reform — which must include a path to legal status for illegal immigrants — are angry about illegal immigration. Trying to paper over that won't help, and might actually hurt.

Better to confront it directly: Yes, there's illegal immigration, and yes, illegal immigrants should have to pay fees and learn English, but no, it's not good for American workers or the American economy to have 12 million illegal immigrants living in the shadows, and no, deporting 12 million people is not a realistic option. Put differently, there are two fundamental facts here: Yes, there are illegal immigrants, and yes, we need to find a way to make them legal residents.

I think that's the right balance. But it's far too sane and pragmatic a proposal to appeal to today's Republicans.