Month: April 2011

Like The Dish, Margaret Talbot argues that DOMA deserves a lawyer. Jonathan Rauch joins the chorus:

So maybe HRC et al. have succeeded in making the point that being anti-gay in today’s America comes at a cost, so think twice? That may be the lesson our side thinks it’s teaching, but the lesson a lot of lawyers may hear is: Don’t represent unpopular or controversial clients—including, next time around, gay ones. Obviously, the other side can use the same tactics against us; that is why minorities, especially, have a stake in a system where unpopular and controversial people can get top-flight legal representation.

An earlier poll found little appetite among Egyptians for Islamism or scrapping Egypt's peace treaty with Israel. Pew's latest poll differs:

Egyptians hold diverse views about religion. About six-in-ten (62%) think laws should strictly follow the teachings of the Quran. However, only 31% of Egyptian Muslims say they sympathize with Islamic fundamentalists, while nearly the same number (30%) say they sympathize with those who disagree with the fundamentalists, and 26% have mixed views on this question. Those who disagree with fundamentalists are almost evenly divided on whether the treaty with Israel should be annulled, while others favor ending the pact by a goodly margin.

Adam Serwer is puzzled by the dueling polls:

Both polls had a similar sample size and polled Egyptians of varying ages and economic means, which makes me wonder how much question phrasing may have had an impact on the disparate results.

Ian Johnson questions the end result of Chinese dissident artist Ai Weiwei's provocations:

When I’ve described him to people outside the cocoon of China’s cosmopolitan elite, they usually ask me what he wanted. If it was just to show that the government could be a bully, no one thought that was news. Such a response may imply a lack of consciousness about individual rights and civil disobedience, and so partly validates Ai’s pessimistic view of China. But it also reveals a pragmatic sensibility among many ordinary Chinese: many of them seem to see their country as more than the corrupt police state that Ai was trying to expose with such vitriol, or at least think that there are better ways of channeling the frustrations about the government that they may well share with Ai.

Isaac Stone Fish looks at the forms of protest that do make news in China. He reports on animal rights activists saving a truckload of dogs from slaughter:

This burgeoning animal-rights activism, aided by the ease of Weibo communication, coexists not only with the braised dog stew found on menus across China but also with China's "take many prisoners" attitude toward human-rights activists. Over the past few months, dozens of outspoken lawyers, artists, and underground church pastors have been harassed, detained, or arrested; some activists say it's the most stifling environment since the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. These arrests rarely make it into China's muzzled media. The dog saving, however, has been a very big story.

The Dish linked to Chris Mooney's defense of his new article but overlooked the article itself. Mooney delves in to the reasons why we find it hard to believe things we don't already know to be true:

Evolution required us to react very quickly to stimuli in our environment. It's a "basic human survival skill," explains political scientist Arthur Lupia of the University of Michigan. We push threatening information away; we pull friendly information close. We apply fight-or-flight reflexes not only to predators, but to data itself.

Amanda Marcotte connects Mooney's article to the Trig question:

At its heart, I think the conspiracy theory reflects the belief that Sarah Palin is a phony. Some conspiracy theories are people rolling up what they know or suspect about a person or a system and making unproven links: 9/11 Truther theories are a manifestation of the suspicion that Bush is an opportunist and a liar.  Global warming denialists believe that environmentalists are more anti-capitalism than pro-environment.  Believing Sarah Palin made up an entire pregnancy is a way to "prove" to yourself your suspicions about a woman who has done a remarkable job of breezing through life by faking it.  To my mind, the evidence against Palin on the record should be enough to satisfy a dislike of her–everything from her pretending she reads newspapers to using Alaska's proximity to Russia as evidence of her foreign policy qualifications to her embrace of reality television—but some people just need to believe something more dramatic.

Or maybe they just look at the countless pointless lies she has told and wonder if she couldn't also lie about something else. You have two moves here, not one. The first is to infer from Palin's general character that she's capable of almost anything; the second is to note that we have massive evidence that she has lied about countless things, even when there is empirical evidence that she is simply wrong (close to 50 odd lies in this category alone). So why not this as well?

Sasha Obama sits while her parents read a book to children during the annual Easter egg roll on April 25, 2011 on the South Lawn of the White House. By Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images.

I am a First Amendment absolutist, as readers know. And I'm also a solid defender of the right to blasphemy. But there are smart ways of doing this, ways that illuminate broader issues – think of 'The Book Of Mormon' or any South Park episode. And then there are smug, cheap and unfunny shots at the faith of other people. Really, this makes me feel like Bill Donohue.

You want to grow some balls? Hold a Hunky Mohammed Contest on Ramadan. And, by the way, thanks for doing your bit to empower every religious right prejudice about gays.

Yes, I'm well and truly busted. Of course, this is the best toilet reading I know of.

Jonathan Bernstein provides a reality check:

Trying to connect the American people's deep and long-standing contempt for their Congress with any particular set or arrangements or procedures is a mug's game.

Doug Mataconis connects hate for Congress to the growing power of the executive branch:

Even when Congress might want to assert its Constitutional prerogatives in the face of Presidential power grabs, the relative contempt with which Congress is held in the public eye usually gives the President a distinct advantage in the battle for public opinion. The consequence then of the fact that everybody hates Congress, is that Congress becomes weaker, the Presidency becomes stronger, and liberty becomes less secure.

Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo have an enlightening article on global hunger:

What we've found is that the story of hunger, and of poverty more broadly, is far more complex than any one statistic or grand theory; it is a world where those without enough to eat may save up to buy a TV instead, where more money doesn't necessarily translate into more food, and where making rice cheaper can sometimes even lead people to buy less rice.

(Hat tip: Cowen)