Month: June 2012

Kibbutz Sde Boker, Israel, 6.45 am

Christopher Preble can't make Romney's math work. Suderman piles on:

According to Preble's calculations, Romney's spending floor would require a 42 percent increase in defense spending compared to the Reagan era and a 64 percent increase over average annual budgets post Cold War. All together, the requirement would add $2.58 trillion over the next decade's current baseline. That's an even bigger challenge given Romney's other commitments. He has variously promised to cap overall government spending as a percentage of GDP, not cut Medicare, and not raise taxes. How might all of these promises fit together? Romney won't say, admitting that his budget plan can't be scored.

Let's call this what it is: the most fiscally reckless campaign since, well, Bush's in 2004. How can a candidate seriously run for office on cutting the debt and not show us how his sums add up?

"We seek cities because there are a greater range of girls at the bar, of reproductive choice. Number one. Number two is there are better outcomes for health and wealth. And now we care more about the environment, and cities are better for the environment. But above all, talented people seek cities for fame. They can’t get famous in the fucking village," – Boris Johnson, mayor of London.

Ask Veronique de Rugy Anything

[Re-posted from yesterday with several questions added by helpful readers]

From her bio:

Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Her primary research interests include the U.S. economy, federal budget, homeland security, taxation, tax competition, and financial privacy issues. Her popular weekly charts, published by the Mercatus Center, address economic issues ranging from lessons on creating sustainable economic growth to the implications of government tax and fiscal policies. She has testified numerous times in front of Congress on the effects of fiscal stimulus, debt and deficits, and regulation on the economy. de Rugy writes regular columns for Reason magazine, the Washington Examiner, and blogs about economics at National Review Online’s The Corner and at Big Government.

Veronique's recent charts and analysis have been important to the Dish's coverage of the Euro crisis. You know the drill by now: enter a question into the field at the top of the Urtak poll (ignore the "YES or NO question" aspect and simply enter any open-ended question). We primed the poll with questions you can vote on right away – click "Yes" if you are interested in seeing Veronique answer the question or "No" if you don't particularly care. We really appreciate your help with these polls.

"You never have to smoke a joint in Venice. You just go on a bicycle ride in the morning, you just inhale, and you live off everyone else," – Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Roberto Unger, a post-everything-but-"context-smashing" former professor of Obama's, recently said that the president "must be defeated" because he has "failed to advance the progressive cause in the United States." Garry Wills rolls his eyes:

The mistake behind all this is a misguided high-mindedness that boasts, “I vote for the man, not the party.” This momentarily lifts the hot-air balloon of self-esteem by divorcing the speaker from political taintedness and compromise. But the man being voted for, no matter what he says, dances with the party that brought him, dependent on its support, resources, and clientele. That is why one should always vote on the party, instead of the candidate. The party has some continuity of commitment, no matter how compromised. What you are really voting for is the party’s constituency. That will determine priorities when it comes to appointments, legislative pressure, and things like nominating Supreme Court justices. 

Jamelle Bouie nods: 

Even among political reporters, there’s a tendency to separate the candidate from the party, as if a president is somehow separate from the constituencies that he represents. But the truth of the matter, as Wills points out, is that in most instances, the president works to fulfill the priorities and demands of the groups who elected him. … If you want, you can play this game with Barack Obama circa 2008. Anyone who looked at the Democratic coalition at the time, and thought Obama wouldn’t try to pursue health care reform, or support our involvement in Afghanistan, is fooling themselves.

A moving film about Remote Area Medical, the kind of volunteer healthcare charity that you see in developing countries:

The group was recently profiled by Alec MacGillis in an article the WaPo went cool on.

A reader writes:

"There's one moment in it when you forget and forgive all of Larry Kramer's occasional excesses"

Fuck you "excesses". How do you think you make people listen? And try to keep them listening. For all those years! I learned that lesson very early. Be excessive, be a pain in the ass, dont give a shit what anyone thinks. That's why we were a success and you weren't with all your intellectual politesse. 1,112 And Counting went all over the world. And I was out there with my excesses before you ever opened your mouth. And dont you ever forget it. And while we're at it, perhaps you could be so kind to run this fantastic Washington Post review about my excesses.

It is a spectacular production and I hope you see it and publicize it. Re: David France's documentary. What it doesn't say is what happened to ACT-UP because of TAG. Staley, Harrington, Barr, et al destroyed it. The greatest single thing the gay world has ever birthed was destroyed by its very own. It was not nearly so rosy as France portrays it and which you appear to have bought into hook line and sinker.

Love and kisses

Larry Excessive (and believe me I dont want your forgiveness).

He's still very much alive, isn't he? And yes, go see "The Normal Heart," especially if you are under 35. Larry is a hero, I should add, an infuriating, polarizing but indispensable hero. For all the reasons he cites. But intellectual argument is also part of a civil rights movement. And the emergence of TAG really helped us get better, swifter drug trials and more accurate information. I don't believe it killed ACT-UP. I think it supplemented it. Which is to say: this isn't a zero-sum game. But for Larry, everything almost always is.

The Mittster is death for online traffic. And Buzzfeed went out and did an experiment to prove it. Online interest in Obama is far, far greater than in Romney. Which is probably fine by Mitt.