Month: June 2011

James Surowiecki asks the GOP to end its crusade against Elizabeth Warren and her efforts to reform the banking and lending industries with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau:

Meatpackers hated the Meat Inspection Act of 1906, but it rescued the industry from the aftereffects of the publication of “The Jungle.” Wall Street said that the creation of the S.E.C. would demolish stock trading, but the commission helped make the U.S. the world’s most liquid and trusted stock market. And bankers thought that the F.D.I.C. would sabotage their industry, but it transformed it by effectively ending bank runs. History suggests that business doesn’t always know what’s good for it.

Recently Herman Cain promised he wouldn't appoint any Muslims as federal judges or to his cabinet. Asked if he would consider appointing an openly gay person to his cabinet, Cain says:

I don’t have a problem with appointing an openly gay person. Because they’re not going to try to put sharia law in our laws.

As if the vast majority of American Muslims want that anyway.

A definition:

[I]t is the culmination of many years of unfortunate decisions regarding child rearing — ill-conceived self-image programs, rewarding mere participation, the alienization of punishment, and the emergence of political correctness.

It is the failure of the education system; the dumbing down of America.

It's the self-righteousness and vitriol of religious factions.

The loss of civility due, in-part, to an erosion of communication skills.

It's the lies of politicians and corporate executives. The slow decay of integrity and honesty.

It's unreality television.

And, it's an uninformed and ignorant electorate; partially the result of a deficient media.

Pete Wehner, in a rejoinder to Andrew McCarthy, notes how the Gipper was not opposed to government assistance for the elderly, once it had been established, and proceeded with caution and pragmatism with respect to the welfare state. The same can be said of Thatcher. She barely touched the National Health Service – and she had eleven years in office to do so.

Kevin Drum is unimpressed by Douthat's argument against assisted suicide:

More than anything else, I think this column illustrates the perils of taking a religiously motivated belief and trying to justify it on secular grounds. It just doesn't work. The slippery slope here pretty obviously doesn't amount to much, so you're left with a simple disapproval of people deciding to take their own lives. And what's the argument for that? Douthat doesn't provide one. He simply declares it murder and calls it a day. Without recourse to his underlying religious objections, that's really his only choice.

"I don’t agree with the policies the GOP is pushing under the guise of deficit reduction, but I think they’re right to see an opportunity for reform rather than a math problem that needs to be solved. A world in which we stop taxing work so heavily and begin taxing carbon is much preferable to a world in which we just jack up taxes on work. A world where we’re saving money through a strong public option is a lot better than a world in which we’re saving money by reducing health-care benefits. It’s better to save money through reforms that make the state work better than to simply make it do less and tax more," – Ezra Klein.

Readers react to my initial thoughts on Weiner's press conference. One writes:

You see "little reason" why he should resign? Really?  Seriously? Here's the reason:  people given to extraordinarily stupid, reckless behavior should not hold public office. 

Even my thirteen-year-old daughter knows a basic rule:  you don't send sexually explicit photos electronically.  Anyone who doesn't live in a cave knows this.  Just like you don't do other things highly likely to result in public embarrassment and dismay, if you care in the least about your reputation.  And politicians need to care about their reputations. 

How far would Weiner have climbed in his political career if he hadn't been caught?  I've volunteered for political campaigns; can I just say how bitterly angry I would be to learn that my hours of work had been in support of someone who not only couldn't behave decently – among other things, Weiner's behavior represents a deep and extremely public injury to his wife – but who couldn't be bothered to exercise basic precautions to hide his own stupid proclivities? 

Clearly there is something about politics that attracts men with a taste for recklessly immature sexual behavior.  But let's try to weed at least some of them out before they jeopardize, say, a Democratic seat in the Senate – or make it to the Presidency and then waste the government's time and resources on an impeachment after they (inevitably) resort to lying about said behavior. 

Another quotes me:

Yes, he absolutely should not have lied. He should never have lied. But he has now also copped to his lies.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but are you saying it is generally acceptable for public officials to lie to the media, the general public, and their constituents so long as they eventually cop to it? And that there should be no formal punishment for it? I think it would be great if you could write a bit more about your thinking here, where you draw the line, and connect it to some of the other recent incidents involving political officials.

Another:

Further, you say, "No one, so far as I can tell, was harrassed, no one was abused"  Really?  Does the recipient of the tweet matter?  You may downplay the impact on her life, but Weiner's odd lies left a lot of blood in the water, which sent the reporters after this girl in a way that may not have occurred had Weiner simply fessed early and loudly.  Even though she is innocent, she has suffered the trauma of national media glare and the taint of an association with this matter that will take some time to wear away.

This lying had real world consequences for real people.  It's very difficult, if not impossible, to say offhand that this type of lying – or any type of lying for that matter – by public officials does not have collateral damage.  It does.

Another:

You wrote: "Moreover, if online flirting is unforgivable, why isn't off-line flirting unforgivable? And what really is the difference?" As a broad principle, I agree with this sentiment. But there's definitely one big difference here: Weiner, I'm pretty sure, was using public resources to do this.

And yes, Twitter is free and a House blackberry doesn't have a per minute charge or anything, but still: there's a big difference between being a little kinky and sketchy in your private life, and brining it to work. If anyone at my government office does this on government equipment, I'm pretty sure they're not given a second chance. Or even a chance to explain.

That's not to say that Weiner's job circumstances aren't different than mine or most peoples; but this is still his place of employment, and that counts for something.

Another:

Here's why I'm pissed off at Anthony Weiner – it's that he let this salacious debacle define him, and I've been counting on him to take on the newly elected GOP majority. How dare he be so stupid? Did it not occur to him that people like Andrew Brietbart would have a field day with this?

A couple months ago my husband and I spent a good part of a morning of our DC vacation in the House Gallery watching Weiner. It was beautiful – he sat there pretending to read the newspaper as Eric Cantor and John Boehner glowingly welcomed their new members. Then he took the floor and asked if all the members of the congress had now been properly sworn (referring to the two freshmen who had failed to show up for the swearing in), just putting the excited Tea Party candidates on notice that they weren't going to get anything by him.

Well, there'll be no more of that from Anthony Weiner. And that's just so incredibly sad and stupid.

My subsequent thoughts here.

Dan Savage is exasperated over arguments such as Douthat's:

Because some indecent people might abuse legal physician-assisted suicide, which hasn't happened in Oregon or Washington state, decent people must watch their loved ones die in agony. My mother's suffering? Her terror and panic in the last conscious moments of her life? A small price to pay, as far as social conservatives are concerned, to protect vulnerable hypotheticals. … Actual physician-assisted suicide, with its rules and regulations, has been legal in Oregon since 1994, in Washington since 2008, and Douthat's fears—which can only be addressed by imposing his values and religious prejudices on others (convenient!)—have not been realized.

Dan's moving account of his mother's passing is worth your time. A snippet related to the discussion at hand:

"You don't know how you're going to feel at the end of your life," the widow planning to vote for I-1000 [that would legalize physician assisted suicide] says. "I want to have the choices available to me."

Choices.

Exactly. If I-1000 is approved by Washington State voters, the widow opposed to the initiative will not be compelled to end her life with the assistance of a physician. She can choose pain meds and the love of caregivers and die a "natural" death. (What's so "natural" about pain management anyway?) But if I-1000 is rejected, the widow who plans to vote in favor of it will not have the same choice. She will not be able to choose to end her life, and end her suffering, if the pain becomes too much for her to bear.

That's what the debate about I-1000 is really all about: your body, your death, your choice.