In Sex Scandal, Congressman Resigns For Not Having Sex, Ctd

Josh Marshall agrees that Weiner's resignation is without precedent:

What stands out to me about all this aren't Weiner's juvenile and mortifying 'offenses,' but the bizarre and almost inexplicable and unprecedented calls for his resignation. I don't think anyone will disagree with me that the open and insistent demands for his resignation from the Minority Leader, the Chairman of his party, the head of the House campaign committee and everyone else is simply unprecedented.

David Kurtz thinks part of the reason Weiner had to go was because he was "a proxy for the [Democratic party] leadership." Jonathan Bernstein blames the lying:

Weiner’s colleagues turned on him almost certainly because he lied, and because of how he lied — because of the very specific lie that he told. If Weiner had ‘fessed up from the beginning, I suspect he would have survived.

Joyner asks relevant questions:

Is Weiner’s scandal really worse than that of those who survived? How much of his Democratic colleagues’ reaction against him is personal? And how much of it is sheer electoral politics, given that he’s in a safe Democratic territory and New York will be losing seats in the next Congress, anyway?

Ezra Klein claims that Weiner is "paying for how media-friendly his indiscretions were."

Immigration Is Good

Immigration_Percentage

Cardiff Garcia regrets that "not only is the US cracking down more on illegal immigration and on those who employ illegal immigrants; the country is also making the legal immigration process infinitely more ponderous":

[T]here’s no reason for the US to get complacent on immigration, and certainly none to backtrack. Especially because there are studies showing that immigration enhances productivity (thereby solving two problems, population and productivity, at once), is especially good for cities, and boosts house prices. And as the CBO report explains, fertility rates among immigrant women aged 14-49 are higher than those of native-born women. Immigration also provides more workers to lower the old-age dependency ratio, something that should matter in a country with so many retiring boomers. Yes, there are nuances in all of these, but we think you know where we stand.

Why Romney Might Win

From PPP's latest poll:

Romney's strength is with those voters for whom electability is the paramount concern. He gets 27% with them to 14% each for Cain and Palin and 12% for Pawlenty. With GOP partisans more concerned about ideology Romney is third at 16%, behind Cain's 22% and Palin's 18%.

Gallup found that ability to beat Obama is the top issue for GOP voters.

An Election No One Wins

Joe Klein sizes up the GOP contenders:

Some presidential campaigns — 1960, 1980, 1992, 2008 — are exhilarating, suffused with hope and excitement. This is not likely to be one of those. It is likely to be an election that no one wins but someone loses. It will be a reversal of politics past: a pragmatic Democrat will be facing a Republican with all sorts of big ideas, promising an unregulated, laissez-faire American paradise.

A Right To Die? Ctd

Scheminske

Another reader addresses our depressed reader:

I'm not here to tell you to have hope or that it's going to get better.  I am here to say that you are not alone.  Sitting in our separate homes, anonymously typing on our computers, we have more in common that many of the people in our lives. I am a smart, successful, vivacious, attractive, very funny and clearly confident woman with many friends and family.  I have endless support from loving people, and I know that I am deeply cherished and loved.  If I didn't tell you that I had depression, you would never know it.  You see, I am a natural optimist with a bright outlook on life … and I suffer from recurrent severe depression.

When I am suffering a bout of depression, knowing I am loved does not stop me from feeling too worthless to be alive.  It's not about logic or attitude for me.  It's a full body emotional pain that permeates every cell of my being. 

Fortunately now, I suffer at a deep level for just a few days at a time, whereas a while back it was two years of suicidal depression.  I used to pray for God to "take me," hoping I could will myself into death by slowing my mind and my breath.  Each morning, I would wake up to a screaming suicidal mind, devastated I had survived the night before.

These days, my non-suicidal depression is being curled up on the couch, paralyzed, every limb as heavy as lead, thirsty without having the energy to drink, wondering when my inertia will pass, moving only to go to the bathroom (because hey, I draw the line at peeing on myself), staring into the bathroom mirror, looking for life in my eyes, finding none, wondering where I went and when I'll be back.  

The purpose of my email is this: to simply tell you that you are not alone.  I hear you, I get you, I don't have to empathize with you because I am you.  We tell the same story, a horrible story, but we are not alone.  There are countless numbers of us out there, suffering mostly in silence.  How many times have I wished I had cancer, so I could tell people and they would say, "Oh, you poor thing, are you ok?"  No!  No, I'm not OK, I would shout back, given half a chance.  

My hope is that this email brings you a moment of comfort, knowing that you're not alone and that this isn't your fault.  Hear me?  This is not your fault!  May your pain soon pass, while you're still breathing, because you deserve the break.  I thank you for being an inspiration to me.

Another takes a different tack:

How many hours did your depressed reader spend volunteering, such as working with/helping kids, the elderly or animals? Most likely answer-zero. How many hours did he spend working in his parent’s yard or doing chores on the house or cleaning the home to earn his living there? Again, probably zero. How many hours last week did he spend trying to make his neighborhood, town, community, the world at large a better place? You get the point.

What did he do last week? Let me take a guess – get up at noon, watch TV, eat bad fatty sugary food, go to sleep, repeat. No wonder he’s depressed. He sees his life for what it is – worthless!

Sorry if this sounds cruel, but if you feel you contribute nothing to the world, then you don’t see the problem with ending your life because it won’t matter. And you’d be right. How about instead of speeding up the inevitable he try changing his life so that it will matter? He might be right that he has no control over his feeling depressed, but to second a previous response, he does have control over WHAT HE DOES with his life. I understand it is a vicious cycle; you're depressed so you do nothing; you do nothing so you feel worthless; you feel worthless so you get more depressed. But at a certain point, no matter how hard it is, you have to break that cycle and try to fight for something better.

How about this: tomorrow take your parent’s lawn mower and go find the home of an elderly neighbor and offer to mow their lawn for free. Afterwards, sit and talk to them for 30 minutes on their porch. If he’s lucky he’ll get a glass of lemonade out of it. Don’t talk about yourself; listen to them. The day after, go for a hike/walk; the day after that, volunteer at an animal shelter. In other words, purposefully do things that will be missed if you die to give your life purpose. Which in doing so will make you feel better and hopefully, eventually, break the cycle.

A professional is on the same page:

As a shrink, I'm going to make some seemingly off-the-wall suggestions to your depressed reader, but they're based on our ever-growing knowledge of brain physiology and habit formation.   He can fix himself; it is absolutely within the realm of the possible.  But he won't do it by thinking about himself; he needs to externalize.  Contra Freud, insight alone rarely solves much, and a constant focus on oneself and one's problems, especially for people who are depressed, tends to make things worse in the absence of concommitant specific cognitive and/or behavioral strategies for change.

His pain is palpable and as pervasive as his frustration, so suggesting that he NOT THINK about how miserable he is, but instead focus on doing something for someone or something outside of himself, sounds counter-intuitive and Pollyanna-ish, if not outright cruel.  And yet…  his neuronal pathways tending towards depressing, defeatist self-references have obviously been over-enriched at the expense of, well, everything else.  So he's got to change that. These things are plastic, and literally grow or shrink depending on usage.  

I would urge him to find a cause, an activity, something bigger than himself that he can think about, and expend real physical energy on.  He needs physical activity directed towards an external goal; not doing something for himself (although he will be), but for other people, animals, the planet, a political cause, neighborhood clean-up – whatever.  Once he finds that cause and starts working, setting goals (however small) to accomplish in that cause, and accomplishing them, the energy itself will build and grow, just like his non-depressive cognitive patterns.  And every time he finds himself thinking negative, defeatist thoughts, he should imagine one of those giant red stop signs and STOP!  It's another habit to develop, and gets easier and more effective every time he tries it.  

Also, your reader who suggested smiling was also onto something real; let him develop the habit of smiling any time he starts feeling rotten. Believe it or not, it works.

I do wish this man the best and am sorry he was denied the help he needs, although I suspect whoever was treating him focused on his pain and his past, rather than helping him develop concrete strategies for a healthier present and future.

Another reader:

I have been reading your blog on a daily basis for the past five years, and that reader's emails stopped me in my tracks.  This post, more than any other I have read on The Dish, crystallized for me exactly the type of community your readers have created here.

I have long supported the right of a patient to end his or her life – especially now, as my father is faced with a traumatic, degenerative form of Parkinson's, and things have gotten so bad that he can no longer remember how to dial a telephone.  On the other hand, I am a middle school teacher, which means that my job is to fix things.  I can't help but read those two e-mails – both of which break my heart – and say to myself, "I wish there was something I could do."  (The fact that I'm listening to Public Image Ltd.'s "Poptones" right now probably doesn't help my mood, either.)

(Photo by Meg Scheminske)

Home News

DSCN1943

We are proud to announce that we have selected our first class of Dishterns. It was a long and arduous process, since we tried to give the roughly 250 applicants the most careful and fair evaluation we could. In the end we chose Maisie Allison and Zack Beauchamp. Maisie comes to us from TNR, where she directs online marketing and social media. Before that she was an Atlantic media fellow. Zack is just wrapping up his masters degree in International Relations at LSE. Both are total Dishheads and will be exciting addition to the team of Chris, Patrick and Zoe. I hope you'll see the results of a wider, deeper Dish in the near future. And thanks to the Beast for believing in us enough to give us new staff.

A big thank you to all the wonderfully smart and talented applicants. We were honored by your efforts.

Obama’s Two New Illegal Wars

84155725

Adam Serwer is confused by my position:

I find Andrew Sullivan's contention that "Obama is now engaged in two illegal wars – in Libya and in Yemen," particularly odd. Sullivan defended the administration's authority to target radical cleric and American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, but those strikes were being undertaken by JSOC under authority claimed under the [Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF)]. It doesn't make sense to argue that when the military was targeting him, it was legal, but the CIA's increased involvement makes U.S. operations in Yemen an "illegal war." If JSOC can legally target al-Awlaki, then there's little legal basis to argue that the CIA can't. If, on the other hand, you believe that operations in Yemen represent an expansion of the "war on terror" that isn't authorized by the AUMF, then the CIA's involvement is legally troublesome. But at the time Sullivan wrote that "Yemen surely is a "declared battlefield" – at least as far as al Qaeda is concerned." As far as the administration and most of Congress seem to be concerned too.

These are good points to which I would clarify thus. I do believe that in the matter of a potential battlefield like Yemen, strikes against known terrorists trying to kill Americans are warranted, if we are sure we can kill or capture the enemy with accuracy and minimal civilian casualties. Sending in a SEAL team to capture or kill bin Laden is not at the level of a full-scale war with Pakistan -  although we should note that does not seem that way to Pakistanis, hence the huge wave of anti-Americanism that has resulted.

There must come a point, however, when you are not targeting a one-off specific figure or cell, but launching round after round of drone missiles into a country, as into the Af-Pak border. The drone 115221978attacks into Pakistan are mighty close to warfare, it seems to me. There comes a point, in other words, at which a military kinetic action becomes a war. Drones are particularly dangerous instruments in this respect. They allow a president to pick war at will, and placate the public with no military casualties. This is precisely what the Founders were scared of. We have created a King with an automated army, and no Congressional or public check outside of elections, when the damage may have already been done.

Maybe the line between targeted anti-terror strikes and de facto, ongoing warfare is hard to define. Sometimes, the executive may need to act urgently and unilaterally to counter an imminent military threat. But we are so far away from that now it's almost irrelevant. I guess ongoing, routine military attacks constitute war in my book. (One good test is: if it were happening to us, would we consider it an act of war? If a foreign power dropped a drone missile on your block, would you call it a military kinetic action?) But my point is that it is this inherent lack of clarity is what guided the Founders to do what they did. They set the standard for warfare very high. They wanted to restrain the Prince. And that restraint on presidential power is at the core of the American experiment of divided powers. Which is why, the Bush-Cheney position was not only, in my view, imprudent, but deeply hostile to the core founding values of this country.

The thing about war, as the Founders understood, is that you rarely end up with anything like the state of affairs you started with.

You can begin with a few "military advisers" in South Vietnam and end up in years of brutal, counter-productive warfare. You can start with Wolfowitz's fantasy of a quick and cheap Iraq intervention and end up a decade later a trillion dollars short and with a real anxiety that the whole place will go to hell when and if the US really does pull out. You can help some Afghan rebels defeat the Soviets and set in train a war that is now at its most intensive decades later.

But at least we did have a debate and vote with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan. There was no Congressional debate over Libya or now the escalation in Yemen. The administration's argument on Libya, as revealed yesterday, is that the conflict is too constrained and limited to be called a war. Please. Tell that to those hearing shells and missiles explode in military installations around their neighborhoods in Tripoli. Thousands of air raids and sorties have occurred since this not-war was not-declared.

Second: mission creep is not some lefty fantasy. It's a historic reality. The deployment of violence wreaks its own consequences that are often uncontrollable except through more force.  And the notion that we are not trying to install regime change in Libya through military action is ludicrous. What was justifed as a one-off attempt to prevent an alleged massacre of "tens of thousands" is now an on-going, soon to be billion-dollar war that's going nowhere slowly, but clearly trying to kill and traumatize a dictator and destroy the physical components of his regime. On what grounds does an American president in a fiscal hole like ours borrow another billion dollars to finance an intervention in a civil war in … Libya?

And I do think the military/CIA distinction matters. One thing I've learned this past decade is that the CIA is pretty much its own judge, jury and executioner. It is much less accountable to the public, more likely to break the laws of war and destroy the evidence, more likely to do things that could escalate rather than ameliorate a conflict. To read that the CIA has been given a green light to do what it wants to do in Yemen with drones seems to me easily over the trip-wire for war that requires Congressional buy-in.

Technology has made this more problematic. If the CIA, based on its own intelligence, can launch a war or wars with weapons that can incur no US fatalities, the propensity to be permanently at war, permanently making America enemies, permanently requiring more wars to put out the flames previous wars started, then the Founders' vision is essentially over. I think it's a duty to make sure their vision survives this twenty-first century test.

(Top photo: A US 'Predator' drone passes overhead at a forward operating base near Kandahar on January 1, 2009. By Joel Saget/AFP/Getty Images. Side photo: Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan activists gather for a protest rally in Karachi on June 4, 2011, against US drone attacks in the country. A drone attack June 3 was the ninth reported in Pakistan's border area with Afghanistan, branded by Washington the global headquarters of Al-Qaeda, since US commandos killed bin Laden in the garrison city of Abbottabad on May 2. By Asif Hassan AFP/Getty Images.)