Month: January 2011

Today on the Dish, Andrew joined Paul Gottfried's pile-on of Lowry, and commended E.D. Kain on his interview with the editor of The American Conservative. Bruce Bartlett  and Andrew banded together to ask Obama to save sane conservatism, Matt Steinglass nailed Israel's growing illiberalism, while Andrew saw the larger fight against religious fundamentalism.

Andrew didn't care that Sarah Palin retweeted Tammy Bruce on gay rights, while some were all too eager to insist she could win a general election. Erick Erickson begged to differ, Noah Kristula-Green documented the O'Donnell effect, and Peter Beinart asked the tea-partiers to re-read the Constitution. Tom Jensen rated Huckabee's chances, Ed Morrissey wanted Obama around more, and Obama out-trended Reagan. Sprung argued political calculation isn't always paramount to results, anti-gay groups boycotted CPAC because of GOProud, and the national debt climbed. International conflicts are down, but some cultures (and the chiefs among them) still had to fight to keep themselves alive. Judith Miller called Julian Assange a bad journalist, speaking on behalf a terrorist could mean providing material support, and Google was killing magazine puns.

Leonhardt opened our eyes to the rationing that already exists in healthcare, and we heard dueling opinions on the faul healthcare repeal. Sean Strub critiqued New York's new HIV scare-tactic, parking is pricey, Prop 8 headed back to California's Supreme Court, and readers responded to Ross on abortion and adoption. TNC called Kanye's latest album racist, Snooki was the new Fitzgerald, gay actors weren't getting gay roles, and Andrew weighed in on Hitchens' rules for the perfect cup of tea.

Chart of the day here, MHB here, FOTD here, Yglesias award here, Malkin award here, more mushroom threads here and here, dissents of the day here, quote for the day here, VFYW here, VFYW contest winner #31 here, and a bear and a bucket here.

–Z.P.

The Atlantic's new cover story, written by Chrystia Freeland, profiles the global elite. Money quote:

[T]he rich of today are also different from the rich of yesterday. Our light-speed, globally connected economy has led to the rise of a new super-elite that consists, to a notable degree, of first- and second-generation wealth. Its members are hardworking, highly educated, jet-setting meritocrats who feel they are the deserving winners of a tough, worldwide economic competition—and many of them, as a result, have an ambivalent attitude toward those of us who didn’t succeed so spectacularly. Perhaps most noteworthy, they are becoming a transglobal community of peers who have more in common with one another than with their countrymen back home. Whether they maintain primary residences in New York or Hong Kong, Moscow or Mumbai, today’s super-rich are increasingly a nation unto themselves.

Ramin Setoodeh's theory:

The lovable lesbian wives in The Kids Are All Right were played by the heterosexual actresses Annette Bening and Julianne Moore. The quirky couple in I Love You Phillip Morris were portrayed by straight men Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor. … Movies need to attract the broadest possible audience, and filmmakers worry that if they cast a gay person as a romantic lead, audiences will be too grossed out. Instead, straight actors get the roles, and everybody talks about how brave they are. Stanley Tucci has played gay so many times (The Devil Wears Prada, Burlesque) it’s like he’s switched teams. 

David Link differs:

[A]nyone who saw the Emmy awards last year might have noticed that one category alone — Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series — had nominations for gay actors playing straight, gay actors playing gay and a straight actor playing gay.  Yes, the straight actor won, but does anyone at all think this Hollywood has any problem with any qualified actor playing gay roles?

David Cole thinks current law makes it too easy to be charged with that offense, and that some big names have put themselves in legal jeopardy:

DID former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, Tom Ridge, a former homeland security secretary, and Frances Townsend, a former national security adviser, all commit a federal crime last month in Paris when they spoke in support of the Mujahedeen Khalq at a conference organized by the Iranian opposition group’s advocates? Free speech, right? Not necessarily.

The problem is that the United States government has labeled the Mujahedeen Khalq a “foreign terrorist organization,” making it a crime to provide it, directly or indirectly, with any material support. And, according to the Justice Department under Mr. Mukasey himself, as well as under the current attorney general, Eric Holder, material support includes not only cash and other tangible aid, but also speech coordinated with a “foreign terrorist organization” for its benefit. It is therefore a felony, the government has argued, to file an amicus brief on behalf of a “terrorist” group, to engage in public advocacy to challenge a group’s “terrorist” designation or even to encourage peaceful avenues for redress of grievances.

Greenwald:

Imagine if a group of leading American liberals met on foreign soil with — and expressed vocal support for — supporters of a terrorist group that had (a) a long history of hateful anti-American rhetoric, (b) an active role in both the takeover of a U.S. embassy and Saddam Hussein’s brutal 1991 repression of Iraqi Shiites, (c) extensive financial and military support from Saddam, (d) multiple acts of violence aimed at civilians, and (e) years of being designated a “Terrorist organization” by the U.S. under Presidents of both parties, a designation which is ongoing? The ensuing uproar and orgies of denunciation would be deafening.

But on December 23, a group of leading conservatives — including Rudy Giuliani and former Bush officials Michael Mukasey, Tom Ridge, and Fran Townsend — did exactly that.

Jacob Sullum wrote last May about how the War On Terrorism was morphing into a war on free speech.

Maybe with a little help from these folks:

PrimariesForPalin.com aims to nominate Sarah Palin as the Republican presidential candidate by encouraging Democrats and Independents to purposefully vote for her in state primaries, which would all but ensure Obama’s reelection. In head-to-head polls with President Barack Obama, Palin consistently fares worse than other possible Republican candidates because of her divisiveness. If Palin is nominated, Obama has a much better chance of winning reelection in November 2012.

Allahpundit is skeptical:

[H]ow many voters are that politically savvy and motivated? — but it’s such an article of faith among lefties that Palin would be cannon fodder for Obama that you might see a little grassroots groundswell for this idea come 2012.

A reader writes:

You stated, "If the pro-life movement dedicated its every moment not to criminalizing abortion but to expanding adoption opportunities, it would win many more converts."  I take issue with the phrasing I bolded.  My wife and I are currently in the process of a domestic (U.S.) adoption of an unborn child.  We are adopting through a Christian agency that would certainly be labeled as pro-life and is spending some of its time providing young women with an alternative to abortion while matching those women up with couples to adopt those children. 

Some of the agency's time is spent matching U.S. couples with Ethiopian orphans who need a home.  I suppose I'm a part of the pro-life movement and will be spending my time raising a child that perhaps would have been aborted if it wasn't for for the agency spending their time counseling and supporting the birth mother.  I should also say the agency we are adopting through has to spend the rest of its time raising money since they don't charge an agency fee (though ask for $3000 to reimburse their costs, which is on top of attorney and social worker fees which we'll be paying for though there is an adoption tax credit) and the entire staff are "missionaries" and don't earn a salary but rather must raise their own funds.  Then of course, there's my evangelical, pro-life church which is raising money (which is earned as the result of time spent working) this month to help current and future adoptive parents in the congregation of which there are several. 

I guess my point is before you generalize the entire pro-life movement and how their time is spent, you may want to consider the multitude in the movement quietly working and spending time expanding and providing adoption opportunities.

Another dissents from a different direction:

That photograph of a fetus at 19 weeks is extremely misleading. You meant to be shocking, but its use distorts a healthy discussion of a difficult topic of abortion.

Most abortions in the US are early terminations. See this report (PDF). It states that "Most abortions occur before 9 weeks' gestation, and the proportion of very early abortions (<7 weeks's gestation) has increased substantially since 1994." Additionally, see this review (PDF), where data show that 88% of abortions occurred prior to 12 weeks gestation. Overall, abortions decreased from 1.61 million in 1990 to 1.2 million in 2005.

I agree that the number of abortions performed in the US is tragically high. Why? Our policy makers are beholden to and fearful of the religious righteous. How much effort do the anti-choice groups put into pregnancy prevention? (And I'm not talking about abstinence classes!)

That's what Bruce Bartlett is asking of president Obama:

In your State of the Union address, single out and mention by name a few Republicans who have taken actions or proposed ideas worthy of consideration. Quote some conservative intellectuals who have been critical of the Republican Party’s lack of a governing philosophy or meaningful legislative agenda. This will raise the status of a better class of Republicans and create a group with whom you can possibly develop a partnership.

What I am suggesting is really just a broader version of a tactic you have already occasionally used. In November, for instance, you invited Brent Scowcroft, Henry Kissinger, and James Baker to a high-profile White House meeting to highlight their support for the new START treaty your administration negotiated. That meeting led to several weeks of press coverage in which Senate Republicans who were resisting a vote on ratification were portrayed as sacrificing national security for partisan advantage. That’s the kind of pressure you’ll need if you have any hope of moving your agenda through Congress in the coming two years.

I worry, of course, that on issues more controversial than START, Obama could stigmatize rational conservative voices among the GOP base by praising them. My gut tells me that one man may be more surprisingly helpful than some might expect: Tom Coburn. He endorsed Bowles-Simpson, perhaps the least noticed political event of last month. A Coburn-Obama end-the-long-term-debt alliance would be the best kind of biartisan move Obama could make – with a principled fiscal conservative (if an unhinged social one).

A woman uses eye protection to look at a partial solar eclipse in the sky on January 4, 2011 in the town of Givatayim, Israel. Over parts of Europe as much as two-thirds of the sun slipped from view behind the moon. An event like this hasn't occurred in the area since August 1999, and the next eclipse won't be until March 2015. By Uriel Sinai/Getty Images.

Tom Jensen upgrades Mike Huckabee's chances:

Romney has actually done a little better than Huckabee in … early swing state polls, trailing Obama by an average of just 1 point. In addition Romney has shown the most appeal to independents so far of the top Republicans. There's a large difference in how much enthusiasm there is for Huckabee and Romney with the GOP base though. 73% of conservative Republicans have a favorable opinion of Huckabee, putting him just behind Palin's 77%, and well ahead of Romney's 58%. For all the hand wringing of the last two years you better believe Democrats are going to be excited about going out to reelect Barack Obama in 2012. Republicans need to be able to match that and they're going to need a candidate they're enthusiastic about to make that happen- for now Huckabee fits the bill on that front and Romney doesn't.

A reader writes:

Thank you for infertility. My husband and I have suffered 11 miscarriages since 2004. I can get pregnant, but I can't stay pregnant. I'm 40 now, and for us, our options have narrowed to a few choices: perhaps one more try that would lead to an extremely high-risk pregnancy fraught with complications, surrogacy using my eggs and my husband's sperm, foster care to adoption, domestic adoption, or overseas adoption.

Because of our backgrounds in emotionally troubled households, my husband and I are not sure we're perfect candidates for a high-risk, high-needs kid. And let's be clear: to adopt is often to take on just such a kid, particularly if you're an older adopting parent. Our chances of getting a healthy infant (of any color) is slim.

We will likely end up buying (yes, buying is the correct word here) a child who has significant problems. Adoptive parents are forced to assume significant risks, including but not limited to potential financial losses, the emotional heartbreak of losing a kid to last-minute changes of heart, and the risk of getting a kid with a myriad of disorders or problems related to in-utero damages such as drugs or poor nutrition or early childhood neglect, etc.

The adoption system is broken.

To adopt domestically places the bulk of the risk on the adoptive parents' shoulders. To adopt internationally often amounts to buying a child in circumstances that can be highly coercive and unethical to the relinquishing parents. If the people who are talked out of ending their pregnancies but who aren't really equipped to handle parenting refuse to give up their kid until they've broken them, why should infertile couples be asked to fix these problems? Yes, there are lots of kids who are begging for want of a loving home, but why must the infertile be penalized or be expected to carry a higher burden than their fertile counterparts?

When I see parents with three or four kids who obviously are overwhelmed by their progeny or who are borderline abusive or who obviously can't afford to have that many kids, it makes me wish all the more that it was easier for people who desperately want a child to bring one into their lives.

Another writes:

In 10 days my husband and I will be traveling to China to adopt a little girl, after waiting almost five years to be matched with a child there. I've been asked often why I don't adopt in the U.S., and the short answer is there are very few young, healthy children available for adoption.

But I actually think that in the past half-century or so, society's attitudes toward unwed motherhood have changed. Where it used to be something profoundly shameful, and pregnant girls were encouraged to "give the baby up" and forget they ever gave birth, now even young teens with little means to care for a child are considered monstrous for "giving their baby to strangers." Parents with a pregnant daughter are expected to help her raise the child (or raise it themselves). Schools, churches, and community organizations are provide support for unwed mothers, and adoption is pretty much only considered an option for deeply religious families.

I'm not saying these changes are bad, necessarily, but an unwed pregnant teen today is given many more options than one 50 years ago, and abortion is only one of them. As your quoted article says: "Today, just 1 percent of babies born to unwed mothers are adopted," (emphasis added) which means 99% are presumably being raised by their birth families. I don't believe that if a magic wand could be waved and all abortions were converted into live births that those statistics would change much. The choice isn't between adoption and abortion; it's between abortion and keeping the baby. Adoption is barely on the map.