Month: March 2011

A reader picks up where Rosen left off:

My main frustration with NPR and my local outlet is that they have made a knee-jerk reaction to the threat of the loss of federal funds. They are acting like every other advocacy group that will argue that yes, the deficit is terrible, but OUR funding should be sacrosanct. I get the argument NPR makes that the impact of the loss of funding would fall on the local outlets, but I think that is overstated. Vermont Public Radio does fund raising several times a year, and just completed one cycle where they raised more than their target. I think that if people really value public radio, they will continue to support it through donations.

My other frustration is that they seem to be saying that their funding model is also sacrosanct. In other words, why would it be so horrible if they became more commercial?

They already did that years ago, and the way they add a tag line to note contributions from businesses is not that far from a commercial endorsement in any event. I would be willing to bet, though I can't prove, that local public radio stations could supplant the loss of federal funds by selling (dare I say) commercials! Not the stupid commercials one sometimes hears on commercial radio, but something a bit less intense and more tasteful that would encourage more businesses to pay for being associated with an otherwise good product.

Finally, if people want more diversity of news and opinion on radio, there is another solution to that: petition the FCC to change the rules that allowed companies like ClearChannel to buy up the radio spectrum but without requiring any commitment to public service. Yes, there are more options for news out there, but the radio spectrum isn't getting any bigger, and going back to the days where radio was required to do more public service broadcasting in exchange for the right to control a piece of the spectrum would go further to expand the diversity of voices out there than spending more precious federal funds to maintain what is probably an antiquated business model (being "sort of" commercial free).

Local commitment is more important to diversity than federal funding. And besides, I'm sick and tired of all the whining about who is liberal and who is conservative.

Freddie reminds us that legalizing marijuana is deadly serious:

In 2007 there were over 850,000 marijuana arrests (PDF). The United States has only 5% of the worlds population but imprisons 25% of its prisoners. The federal government spent over $15 billion on the drug war in 2010, or a rate of $500 a second. Our country is 66% non-Hispanic white people but 70% of our prisoners are non-white. The justice system is overwhelmingly unfriendly to the poor. And on and on.

I don't understand how it can possibly remain the case that these facts are out there and yet marijuana legalization is somehow seen as a less than serious issue. This is a social justice issue. This is a racial justice issue. This is a deficit reduction issue. This is an issue of elementary personal freedoms. But we can't fix things as long as people who are ostensibly in favor of decriminalization continue to say so with a smirk, or relegate the issue to the margins, or treat it as a distraction or joke. It's time to get serious about a serious and deeply troubling issue.

(Photo: Darnell Thomas (L) reads while his cellmate Freddron Mendoza works on his poetry in their cell at Sheridan Correctional Center on November 14, 2005 in Sheridan, Illinois. A dedicated center for the treatment of inmates with drug and alcohol abuse problems, the state opened Sheridan in January 2004 to combat a recidivism rate of 54% in its penal system. Nearly 69 percent of all inmates in the Illinois prison system are serving time for drug or alcohol related offenses. The recidivism rate for prisoners who have served time at Sheridan is only 7.7 percent. By Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Douthat joins opponents of a US imposed no-fly zone in Libya:

The lesson of previous campaigns is that the no-fly gambit only really makes sense as a means to regime change if we’re willing to back it up with further shows of force. And unless public opinion shifts dramatically — or our commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq are suddenly magically transformed into Germany and South Korea — it’s very difficult to see Western governments being willing to follow up with anything save words. (How many casualties would the American public accept to see Libya’s rebels take power in Tripoli? 10? 5? Whatever number you pick, the real one is probably lower.)

A couple days ago, Tyler Cowen listed the ideological blind-spots of left-wing and right-wing economists. Ezra Klein responds by listing mistakes ''economists and people who are heavily influenced by economists tend to make when they look at politics." Among them:

Odds are good that you primarily know one sort of person: highly educated, high-achieving, extremely cerebral, etc. Odds are also good that you give too much weight to feedback and ideas from this sort of person, while discounting arguments and complaints from people who don’t know the right way to persuade you. Try to keep that in mind.

A reader writes:

When the lance corporal's body arrived back in the UK, the residents of Wootton Basset all turned out to honour him – as they do with every fallen soldier.  But this time they all brought their dogs, and the emergency services arrived in uniform with their working dogs.  Apparently the usual respectful silence was interspersed with the sound of barking.  It was heartrendingly marvelous.  Brought a tear to my eye.

Another reader sends photos from the scene. Unembeddable footage here.

Were Peter King a less frivolous public official, he might have focused his hearings on the questions Adam Serwer asks about domestic radicalization. On the list:

The process of radicalization. Many law-enforcement agencies have been reliant on a theory of radicalization that often conflates the danger of radicalism with Muslim religiosity. The Brennan Center's Faiza Patel has written a report, Rethinking Radicalization, provides evidence from social scientists and Britain's MI5 that this understanding of how the radicalization process works is outdated and is hampering the government's effort to identify real security threats.

Tom Ricks dissects Gates's recent comments:

I would say the American position is that it will support NATO action if [the Arab League, the African Union or the U.N.] agrees to take the lead. I suspect that the American position may "stiffen," as Churchill would say, if Qaddafi's forces start slaughtering people. That would be a change in the "demonsrable need" meter. Sound legal basis is easy to handle. So that leaves the regional support for action as the major variable.  

Daniel Serwer reviews actions the US might take.  Jon Lee Anderson reported yesterday on the Libyan rebel retreat:

Gone was the festive spirit, the singing and posing with weapons that had characterized the advancing shabbab of a week ago, though they still fired their weapons in the air. Most of the young volunteer fighters seemed tense and angry, and a few were out of control. I watched one man in the distance throw a tantrum, screaming loudly in the middle of the road, apparently upset at the retreat. The remaining anti-aircraft batteries began shooting, and a panic ensued when some people thought they spotted a jet fighter. I had to dodge a flurry of large brass shell casings that spat off a heavy machine firing near me.

(Photo: A rebel Libyan fighter walks up to a sand hill where an old Libyan flag has been set while smoke comes from burning tires during clash with Kadhafi loyalist forces on March 11, 2011 some 10 kilometers east of the key oil port of Ras Lanuf. Libyan rebels appealed for arms today as they sent fighters into battle against Moamer Kadhafi's advancing forces, as France and Britain urged targeted strikes in the oil-rich country. By Roberto Schmidt/AFP/Getty Images)

The Baltimore Sun reports that Felicia "Snoop" Pearson, who starred on The Wire, is facing drug charges. In response, show creator David Simon restates his case against the drug war:

In an essay published two years ago in Time magazine, the writers of The Wire made the argument that we believe the war on drugs has devolved into a war on the underclass, that in places like West and East Baltimore, where the drug economy is now the only factory still hiring and where the educational system is so crippled that the vast majority of children are trained only for the corners, a legal campaign to imprison our most vulnerable and damaged citizens is little more than amoral. And we said then that if asked to serve on any jury considering a non-violent drug offense, we would move to nullify that jury's verdict and vote to acquit. Regardless of the defendant, I still believe such a course of action would be just in any case in which drug offenses—absent proof of violent acts—are alleged.

(Photo: AP/WBAL-TV 11)

Chait doesn't understand why Obama is applying it to Jon Huntsman. Larison laughs as Team Huntsman attempts to spin the president's words of praise:

Huntsman supporters are very entertaining, and I’m looking forward to several more months of this sort of comedy. They understand that Huntsman is pretty much doomed in the primaries by his association with Obama, but for whatever reason they want to repeat as often as possible Obama‘s assessments of Huntsman’s electability, Obama‘s decision to appoint him as ambassador, and Obama‘s supposed fear of a Huntsman nomination. This is rather odd reverse psychology. It’s as if they’re saying, “The only way to beat Obama is to take Obama’s advice on choosing the candidate he thinks would be most effective against him, so trust Obama when he says that Huntsman is electable! Obama wouldn’t lie about a thing like that!” I submit that this is a losing message.