Month: November 2011

A reader writes:

Scott Gilmore success is notable. Last year, in Canada, they raised more than $22 million. The global campaign has won broad support and accolades."

And then he denigrates it and tells us to write a check. So, they've successfully raised money while getting to enjoy themselves and a ridiculous mustache. The horror! I donated to a friend's Movember effort this year precisely because of the stupid thing he grew on his face in addition to supporting prostate cancer research. The Movember effort is to raise awareness, just like marches/walks for a whole host of other causes like the Mutt Strutt I donated to and participated in earlier this year.

People who grow a mustache and don't donate, Livestrong bracelet wearers that don't write a check? Yeah, slacktivists. People who grow mustaches, donate, and get others to donate? Doing something.

Another writes:

The whole point is that not many people can pull off a mustache.

My father has a glorious handle bar that he has been growing since he was drafted to fight in Vietnam, when he could barely grow a mustache. I can't possibly live up to that. Instead, I look like an idiot, much to the delight of my friends (and consternation of my girlfriend). But I gamely take the abuse in exchange for whatever people can afford to donate. In this way, I have raised $470 for prostate cancer research thus far. The November mustache is most decidedly not about me. I look sketchy, feel self-conscious about it, and my employer is less than excited about it. I’m leading a big meeting tomorrow and I’m already getting agita. But, what the hell? I’m raising money for a good cause, so why not?

I am not quite sure what Mr. Gilmore expects out of actual activism for cancer research. Perhaps I am to go out and get a degree in biology and research myself?

(Top photo: Movember self-portrait by Billy Abbott; Bottom photo of Army Rangers in Vietnam via Bodenner)

The Economist captions:

[T]he one lesson that can be drawn from the data is that today's strategic priorities can shape deployments for decades to come, long after the original reason for putting G.I.s in a particular region has gone.

Not necessarily.

Another Milwaukee resident writes:

Personally, I think the ad campaign is doomed to fail because it doesn't address the real problem, which in my opinion is not that adults were sleeping with their babies in their beds but rather that drugged or drunk adults were sleeping (it off) with the baby in close proximity. They rolled over on to the baby, depriving the child of air. Apparently, a "don't sleep with your baby if you are drunk out of your mind" campaign wouldn't have done the trick, so the anti co-sleeping campaign was born. As a parent who nursed three children, often sleeping with them, but one who didn't do substance abuse while pregnant or nursing, I think the campaign advocates are painting with much too broad a brush – and lots of parents know this, so the campaign against co-sleeping is not getting any traction.

Another reader:

The studies that have predominantly linked co-sleeping to SIDS neglect to mention they included alcoholics and drug users in their samples, who were much, much more likely to roll over and suffocate their babies. This Guardian article does a lot to dispel some of the myths that have arisen on the so-called "dangers" of co-sleeping. Renowned child development specialist Dr. William Sears also provides some important information on the matter. I don't want new or soon-to-be parents to read your blog and think co-sleeping will kill their infant children.

Sarah Blackwood heralds it:

Bella waits, she wallows, she thinks, and feels, and worries, and wonders. She does not actualize in the sense we have come to expect from our heroines, an expectation that, I might point out, is quite often based on a masculinist understanding of what being effective in the world looks like. Lisbeth Salander, the heroine of the popular The Girl With a Dragon Tattoo series, is emotionally stunted but, damn it, she actualizes herself! She punishes the people who hurt her, she sleeps with whomever she wishes, she zips around on a motorcycle, and she’s a master computer hacker. In other words, our actualized female heroine might as well be a tiny man.

Twilight screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg confirms Bella's understated strength. Alyssa Rosenberg thinks the film still backs away from a more important message:

[Bella] survives her horrific birth and is transformed into a being more beautiful than she ever was as a human. It’s an inverse of Rosemary’s Baby, promising that no matter what you endure, everything will be fine, no need to worry about your health, or any anxieties you might have about motherhood. I still think that a real aversion to having children, or even an antipathy to them in general, is one of the few views that remains fairly taboo in popular culture, where motherhood rules over almost any other alternate priority.

(Image via Tumblr user King Of My World. Another less-than-empowering portrayal of Bella here.)

Below is a detail from an incredible XKCD graphic on money. Each teal square represents a trillion dollars. The estimated "total economic production of the human race (thus far)" (click to enlarge):

A new report from Stanford indicates that the academic achievement gap is now "almost twice as wide between students from poor families and students from wealthy families as it is between black students and white students":

[T]he relationship between parental education and children’s achievement has remained relatively stable during the last fifty years, whereas the relationship between income and achievement has grown sharply. Family income is now nearly as strong as parental education in predicting children’s achievement.

Today on the Dish, Andrew live-blogged the CNN foreign policy debate, and we assembled reax here. We weighed the politics of the supercommittee's collapse, Norquist's pledge represents an open conspiracy, and the Pentagon hyped budget apocalypse. Andrew delved into American exceptionalism as campaign proposition, and Huntsman brought American foreign policy back to earth. We unpacked Romney's proven vulnerabilities as he issued a dishonest first attack (an amusing rebuttal here), and the former governor pivoted to Iowa. Another unelectable candidate surged ahead of Romney, and Newt personified "boomer polarization." The president played "multidimensional chess," he echoed an aggressive Truman on taxes, and we previewed his administration's core argument for reelection. In our AAA video, Andrew discussed whether HIV has shaped his politics. 

We wondered how the Republican candidates would respond to the resurgent protests in Egypt, the Syrian regime "mobilized" its supporters, and Arab attitudes toward the US improved. We assessed Obama's East Asia policy, Andrew McCarthy endorsed defense cuts, and Ryan Avent braced for the worst in Europe. 

Andrew elaborated on It Gets Better, the US teen birth rate is exceptional, and unsafe sleeping kills babies. Readers defended college athletics as another sex abuse scandal emerged, Amazon users took to pepper spray reviews, and the police smashed-and-grabbed with medical marijuana dispensaries as an easy target. Alabama humiliated foreign investors, vodka-tampons burn, and "Movember" is about being seen doing something. We glimpsed polyamorous marriage, and drowned in digital data. 

Dissents of the day here, chart of the day here, FOTD here, MHB here, VFYW here, VFYW contest winner #77 here, and Gingrich drinking game here.

— M.A. 

(Photo: Crowds gather in Tahrir Square on November 22, 2011 in Cairo, Egypt. By Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images.)

David Frum:

[T]his hall tonight–packed to the rafters with DC think tank establishment types–ought to have been effortless Mitt territory, and it was not. The people in this hall know well, all too well, Gingrich’s manifold flaws and weaknesses. Yet they warmed to him, ready to receive him back, not because they trust him, but because he excites them. For the first time since Rick Perry’s abrupt puzzle, we can see the emergence of a genuine “establishment problem” for Romney–and that’s ominous for his hopes.

Josh Marshall:

I think Newt has adjusted well to his nominal frontrunner status. In the context of a GOP primary debate tonight he’s been cool, dramatic in his own way but not over-the-top. He’s ratcheted back the angry retorts, which appear to have been key to his jump into the lead. But I think he’s done it in a way that may make him more palatable to a broader primary electorate without losing him what brought him to this point.

Will Wilkinson:

If Gingrich won, it's because he's such an unviable, nonthreatening candidate, the others didn't feel the need to attack him. Once they do, it will kill him.

Dave Weigel:

Insofar as we can read Romney at all, he looked to be relishing the detour on immigration policy. Gingrich has no policy to apologize for, the way Perry did, but he ends up questioning whether it's "humane" to deport people who got to America then raised families. Again, not as bad as Perry, but something for Bachmann to dig into, something for Romney to take advantage of.

Pete Spiliakos:

Gingrich’s amnesty answer will likely give his competitors the chance to crystallize the narrative that Gingrich isn’t a real conservative.  Too bad.  There are lots better reasons not to want Gingrich to be the Republican nominee or American President.

Carl Prine:

I still can’t see a President Gingrich.   “People want substance!”  No, Newt.  They don’t know if they want Romney.  Currently, you’re the alternate.

Taegan Goddard:

Mitt Romney, as in previous debates, was the best prepared and gave solid answers to all questions. But this time he had a worthy adversary in Newt Gingrich, who is clearly emboldened by his high polls numbers (and his own intellect). The thing to watch: Will Gingrich's "humane" stance on immigration be the issue Romney can use to knock him off?

Stephen Green:

Newt is winning this debate by virtue of being the first challenger to Mitt who didn’t throw it all away in his very next debate appearance.

John Hinderaker:

Did anything change tonight? I don’t think so. The candidates did well, and generally reinforced the images they already had with the party’s base. When Mitt doesn’t lose, he wins. That is mostly what happened tonight, but I suspect that the partisans of pretty much every candidate were enthusiastic about tonight’s debate.

James Lamond:

There was a fairly disturbing portion of the debate tonight where most of the GOP contenders for president supported monitoring Muslims closer than other citizens … it is just flat out bad security policy. There are four basic reasons, without getting into the serious first and second order effects, for this: It overloads and already stressed national security apparatus, serves as a distraction to the real problems, hinders cooperation between communities and law enforcement, and can serve terrorists' recruitment process.

Kevin Drum:

[I]t's appalling that for the second time in a row, a foreign policy debate had no questions — not one — about Europe. The entire continent is on the verge of imploding, and possibly taking us down with them, and Wolf Blitzer doesn't care. And at the end, when the candidates got a freebie question to talk about any issue they felt wasn't getting enough attention, no mention of Europe again. It's just baffling.

Steve Clemons:

Where was the serious discussion about the costs of war and peace (except from Ron Paul)?  Nuclear weapons responsibilities and challenges?  North Korea?  Sudan?  Piracy?  The complications and challenges of the Arab Spring?

10 pm. Gingrich won this debate and Romney lost it. Huntsman and Paul distinguished themselves from the rest of the crowd. I wonder if Paul could make a run in Iowa and Huntsman get a little bump in New Hampshire. I wonder if Romney could drop below 20 percent. Huntsman came alive finally. More fire, please. More passion. There's still been no vote. People can still vote for Huntsman.

Gingrich is being diagnosed as having a Perry "heartless" moment for actually advocating a humane approach to illegal immigrants who have been in the US a long time and have ties and families and children in the US. It made him stand out for me, in a good way. And it really is a sad feature of the GOP if humaneness is somehow a liability.

9.55 pm. Another torture-defender, Marc Thiessen, asks for the candidates to find something else frightening in the world. Santorum sees a Jihadist-leftist alliance in Central and South America. Ooookaaay. Paul actually sees America as living by the same rules as everyone else. Imagine that. Perry wants another Cold War with China, primarily because of abortion. Romney backs up Santorum on the Hezbollah-lefties in South America (forgive me, but I need to bone up on that one). Cain actually says something sane: cyber attacks. Gingrich focuses on a nuclear terror threat. Huntsman brings us back to debt and trust at home. A great performance from him – and a perfect ender.

9.53 pm. Romney is giving us the Full Neocon Jacket. With added anti-China sabre-ratling. There is no place the US should not ultimately control or interfere with. It's really a debate between the 20th Century and the 21st. Mitt wants the 20th back.

9.51 pm. I'm getting the thrill up my leg with Ron Paul again – citing Wolfowitz to argue that al Qaeda targeted the US because of American military intervention in the Middle East. "Why don't we mind our own business?"

9.48 pm. Perry sounds reasonable for the first time on Syria's enmeshment with Iran. I don't think a no-fly zone would really help much, but it's a worthwhile debate. Huntsman's classic conservatism is refreshing and reassuringly competent. But he doesn't have an answer on Iran's nuclear bomb either?

9.46 pm. Another war criminal as a questioner: Dick Cheney's enforcer, David Addington.

9.45 pm. I'd say this debate has been one of the best so far in terms of substance and internal debate. But as a critique of president Obama? They haven't really laid a glove on him yet.

9. 43 pm. I guess I'm not the only one:

You: "I expect him (Ron Paul), Gingrich and Huntsman to bounce after tonight."

Reuters: Leading our #CNNdebate poll so far: Ron Paul, Huntsman, Gingrich.

9.38 pm. Gingrich's pragmatic response on immigration is impressive and places him to the left of Romney. He knows that the rhetoric is fatal to the GOP's outreach to Latinos. But he's also right: how cruel do you have to be in ripping settled families apart and remain America? This is Newt's best debate so far by far – which will, in my view, cement him as the front-runner.

9.36 pm. Romney's doing fine. But not as alive as Gingrich, Huntsman or Paul. Cain has largely faded out. Bachmann is too nuts, although her Pakistan answer shows she's a good study. Palin couldn't have pulled that one off.

9.33 pm. Did Gingrich just say that membership of a church should count for immigration leniency? I have to say that Gingrich has been much calmer and less gratuitously offensive than in the recent past. His defense of some law-abiding but previously illegal immigrants is another pleasant surprise.

9.30 pm. Great question from my friend Nick Schulz. A pro-immigration conservative! Santorum dodges the key issue of the number of H-1 visas. In my view, we should greatly expand highly skilled immigrants and give any graduate from graduate school get a green card with a diploma. And that means I agree fully with Newt Gingrich.

9.25 pm. Hezbollah is now targeting Arizona? Or are we in Perry-land? He says he will "shut down" the border. Paul again comes to the rescue: "the drug war is another war we should cancel." He's had a very strong debate – and gives us the next generation's views on Prohibition. I expect him, Gingrich and Huntsman to bounce after tonight.

9.20 pm. My favorite Romney gaffe: he began to say he supported the Geneva Conventions rather than the Anti-Genocide Conventions. Few up there will defend the Geneva Conventions.

9.14 pm. The word this time for Gingrich is "core." But he's now for privatizing social security. Then he actually says that Washington likes austerity and pain! If only! No word on Medicare, which is by far the biggest fiscal problem. Note that a majority of this panel opposes any defense cuts, would end the healthcare cost-controls in the ACA, will not budge an inch on tax increases, and yet wants to balance the budget soon. Seriously.

9.13 pm. Santorum would raise no net revenue, because he believes that tax increases would decrease revenues. He is still in 1986, without Reagan's pragmatism.

9.10 pm. Perry wants us to believe that the sequestration – agreed to by the GOP in advance – puts servicemembers' lives in danger. He's a moron. He wants more intensity from the president and wants to make the US Congress part-time. Go figure.

9.05 pm. Gingrich really believes that the US could instantly cause oil prices to plummet worldwide? It appears he does. But he does oppose an attack on Iran that is not regime change. And then he actually talks about Israel being "forced" to nuke Iran because the US won't do it with them conventionally! We're getting a good idea of what would occur under these various potential presidents. Under Romney, Santorum, Bachmann and Perry, a complete return to Bush-Cheney with a mindset created by the Cold War. Under Paul, a real reorientation between our means and ends. Under Huntsman, a real, intelligent retrenchment of our defense costs and strategy.

9.03 pm. "Friendly to our foes and disrespectful to our allies": this lie will be central to Romney's campaign. He is full-in on a fusion of the US with the Netanyahu government.

8.58 pm. War criminal Paul Wolfowitz asks the next question about foreign aid. Santorum backs it. But seriously, PEPFAR was about national security? It sounds like a tired cliche from an old Democratic party debate. Like much of the Bush administration. Once again, Ron Paul comes through … with a lovely quote about forcibly taking money from poor Americans to give to rich foreign plutocrats. Yes, it's over-the-top. But he's right that the domestic fiscal crisis is the greatest burden for our foreign policy. And then Paul pwns Romney, who has been bested several times by rivals tonight.

8.54 pm. Gingrich actually argues for a policy of minimal force against Iran. Two "franklys," by the way. But the idea that energy independence could occur in the next few months is dopey. Bachmann says that Obama has canceled the transcontinental oil pipeline and has met with Iran's leaders. She's out of her mind.

8.50 pm. The crucial question: will you back Israel in starting World War III against Iran?

Ron Paul cites Meir Dagan, the former Mossad chief, in countering neocon war-mongering. And he actually says that Israel should bear the consequences of a pre-emptive war – and cites their nuclear weapons. You're not allowed to mention their nuclear warheads. And Paul rightly says that any defense of such a pre-emptive war against Iran should require Congressional support. Alas, it would probably get a majority.

8.46 pm. One other note: has anyone scored an actual point about a specific failure in Obama's foreign policy? Not yet, by my count.

8.41 pm. Gingrich is also accidentally defending Obama's policy vis-a-vis Pakistan. But he has a strong argument about unleashing military power with no restraints that will appeal to the GOP base. Santorum wants the US to have an unending imperial burden in occupying Afghanistan – because anything else would mean catastrophe at home. Cheneyism lives on – but it is finally being challenged by some on this stage.

At this point, I'd say that Gingrich and Huntsman have emerged as the winners. Both seemed clear. Romney seemed to be fading. Cain is done for. Ron Paul remains Ron Paul – a potentially history-making third party candidate if he wants it.

8.40 pm. Huntsman is on a roll – especially the comeback on deferring to military commanders. A great line about the generals in Vietnam. Maybe this is Huntsman's break-out moment. Man, I hope so. He's the sane conservative path past fear.

8.38 pm. Huntsman is praising Obama's foreign policy in Afghanistan, and he's extremely sane about balancing domestic and foreign priorities. His comeback against Romney – "Did you hear what I just said?" – was terrific. Romney retains the classic Cold War mindset – that if the US doesn't control something, it's dangerous.

8.35 pm. A trade zone will cure Pakistan of its historic suspicion of India? That's Rick Perry for ya. Every now and again, he veers into weird, naive Democratic territory. A reader notes:

Perry has gotten so bad that I just found myself nodding in agreement with Michele Bachmann!

8.33 pm. Readers note that Romney has flip-flopped on his own first name. It's Willard, not Mitt. I thought he was trying to be funny, and was as successful in this as he usually is. By the way, I also hereby add the words "fundamental/fundamentally" to the Newt drinking game. So far, sobriety rules.

8.30 pm. Huntsman backs the Obama drone program in Pakistan – after a lame meander through his domestic pitch. Bachmann clearly knows nothing about this subject.

8.28 pm. "No, Blitz!" Then the usual Cain nuttiness on how all you need is to get all the experts together and make a decision.

8.26 pm. God bless Ron Paul. I don't remember a serious declaration of war either. And his point that there is a distinction between terror suspects and terrorists seems to be beyond his colleagues.

8.24 pm. Perry sees the administration that found and killed Osama bin Laden as one that hasn't got a clue about intelligence. I wonder if he actually believes this. Santorum wants profiling Muslims at the airport and elsewhere: profiling by religion.

8.21 pm. It's great to see a real debate between fear and hope in the GOP on national security. Romney actually cites a body of law behind warfare. But the Cheney doctrine is that no law binds the president. He is the law.

8.15 pm. Newt immediately cites the most extreme likelihood of the man with a loose nuke. And unleashes a wave of Cheney-style fear. Ron Paul, God bless him, defends basic liberties in the face of the fear-mongering. Gingrich comes back hard in defending pre-emptive strikes against US citizens. Bu we have that, don't we? The FBI has such powers with US citizens. And Gingrich's clear-cut distinction between criminal jurisdiction and national security begs all sorts of questions. How do we know which possible criminal falls into which camp?

8.10 pm. Rick Perry talks about his wife. Sheesh. Mitt makes a joke that ripples into the dead silence of the room. Newt ups the ante and describes our current stakes as the "survival" of the US. Not quite shot-worthy, but close. Good to see so many of the candidates with relatives in the uniform.

8.07 pm. I love the gawky Ron Paul amble – amiable, a little meandering, but his own. And who is this tuneless Broadway twink? Pitchy, dawg, way pitchy.

8.05 pm. Drum roll: some guys from AEI and Heritage may be asking questions. Calm down in the back there.

8.03 pm. The opener this time looks like a blend between the opening credits of Bill Maher's show and some kind of Mission Impossible set of national security IDs.