Face Of The Day

GT_Occupy_Wall_St

Frances Goldin, 87, from the Lower East Side neighborhood of New York and Occupy Wall Street protester, is caught in a mob being pushed by police at the intersection of Exchange Place and Beaver Street in the Financial District on November 17, 2011 in New York City. The police were attempting to clear a peaceful protest that had linked arms to block traffic. Protesters attempted to shut down the New York Stock Exchange today, blocking roads and tying up traffic in Lower Manhattan. By Andrew Burton/Getty Images.

“Oops” = No Cash

Perry appears to be hitting a fundraising wall. Alana Goodman thinks this is curtains for his campaign:

His more aggressive efforts to paint himself as the non-establishment candidate have been getting a ton of media attention this week, but unless something changes drastically, he’ll need an influx of cash to stay in the race.

Jennifer Rubin is on the same page. Kevin Drum believes the swan songs are premature – but not by much.

Outearning (And Outweighing) America

GT_QATAR_111116

Haley Sweetland Edwards explores Qatar, which has both higher per capita income and higher obesity than America:

In September, Qatar officially became the richest nation in the world, as measured by per capita gross domestic product. It also recently became the world's biggest exporter of natural gas, and earned the title of fastest growing economy in the world. By international development standards, all this growth has happened virtually overnight, making Qataris' lifestyles much more unhealthy, and at the same time leading many to hang on resolutely to what's left of their fleeting tribal traditions — practices that include inter-marriage between close family members and cousins.

(Photo: People fish along the waterfront along the Persian Gulf across from new, illuminated financial district skyscrapers at dusk on October 24, 2011 in Doha, Qatar. By Sean Gallup/Getty Images.)

Gendered Brains

Will Saletan defends research into the neurobiological differences between men and women. But he also cautions against over-interpreting research:

Before you attribute sex differences in behavior or success to evolution, check the record. Today’s differences may not have existed yesterday and may not exist tomorrow. The percentage of math Ph.D.'s awarded to women in the 1950s, according to Hyde, was half what it was in the 1890s and one-sixth of what it is today. Several panelists targeted the word hardwired as a misleading metaphor for explaining the brain. Brains, unlike computers, are constantly altered by experience. So while scans may show differences between men’s and women’s brains, that doesn’t prove the differences are innate.

Why Do Israel And America Fixate On A Nuclear Iran?

Matt Steinglass's guess:

It seems to me that the American and Israeli obsession with Iran's nuclear weapons programme proceeds from a misguided messianic-apocalyptic streak in both countries' political cultures. There's a temptation to imagine the world of foreign policy as a broad extension of a Robert Ludlum novel: a desperate time-constrained race to stop evil madmen from committing atrocities. This vision is morally clarifying and inspiring. But it has little to do with reality, and it distracts the public from the actual challenges of foreign policy, which are usually messy and often involve actual sacrifices in order to achieve publicly valuable goals. 

Larison proposes an alternative theory.

Disqualified By Pop Culture

Colin Miller notes one way for jurors to be kicked off death penalty cases:

In Blackmon v. State, 7 So.3d 397 (Ala.Crim.App. 2005), during death-qualification, two juror were struck because they indicated that The Green Mile had an impact on how they view the death penalty. Fictional films might distort factual reality. They might distort legal reality. They might simplify complex issues. But they matter.

His meditations were inspired by a series of Alyssa Rosenberg's on pop culture and the death penalty. She responds:

A lot of our conversations about pop culture presume that it’s either not very good at making a definitive case for issues, or that it gets bogged down when it goes too didactic. It’s worth remembering that pop culture can play a useful role in complicating issues rather than simply clarifying it. Casting doubt on accepted wisdom is at least as important a as writing party platforms.

The Prop 8 Case Goes Forward

Today opponents of marriage equality were granted standing, which means the 9th circuit can now rule on the appeal. Ari Ezra Waldman analyzes the decision:

We now have the opportunity to take a solid case for the unconstitutionality of a same-sex marriage ban to a friendly panel on the Ninth Circuit. And, that opportunity should come quickly. The Ninth Circuit had this case fully briefed over a year ago and, therefore, should be able to issue its decision on standing and merits relatively quickly. The next steps — depending on which side emerges victories — could see AFER's team of Ted Olson and David Boies before the en banc Ninth Circuit or at the Supreme Court, arguing for marriage equality on the stage of One First Street.

Gabriel Arana has more on what could come next:

Once the Ninth Circuit makes its determination on whether the original decision striking down the law was right, the case will surely be appealed to the Supreme Court, which can either take it or not. Whether it does or doesn't is highly contingent on what the left-leaning Ninth Circuit decides: If it finds that Prop. 8 is in fact constitutional, reversing the lower-court ruling, the Supreme Court could decline to take the case, allowing the Ninth's Circuit decision to stand. However, if the Ninth Circuit agrees with the lower court, the Supreme Court will in all likelihood take the case; the ruling would create a conflict in the application of laws across the country—in California, gay people would have a constitutional right to marry while in Arkansas, they wouldn't. The Supreme Court's primary function is to resolve conflicts like these.

Yglesias Award Nominee

"Knowing everything you know now, if you had been in Congress in 2002, would you have voted to authorize force against Saddam Hussein, yes or no? No. For an Iraqi, there was no price too high to pay to rid the country of Saddam Hussein. For Americans, the issue was not Saddam's badness, but his nuclear weapons program. Knowing that the nuclear program was not a real threat, the invasion was too large a commitment. The world is a better place without Saddam, but as with everything, the question is one of costs and benefits. The costs to the U.S. were too high, the benefits to the U.S. too few," – David Frum. Ackerman asks Frum for more introspection.