Low Comedy In High Office

Screen Shot 2014-03-13 at 2.58.33 PM

Peter Beinart praises Obama’s decision to appear on Between Two Ferns:

By refusing to defer to the office of the presidency, [Zach] Galifianakis allowed Obama to remind his supporters of what they like about him. To Obama’s admirers, he represents American meritocracy at work. Unlike many leading politicians, he was raised with no special advantages. To the contrary, he succeeded—despite an absent father, an exotic name, and black skin—because of his intelligence, eloquence, and ability to adapt to environments as diverse as Chicago housing projects, Harvard Law School, and the presidential-campaign trail. By putting Obama in an unfamiliar and unpredictable environment, where he was forced to rely on his wits alone, Galifianakis helped Obama display his signature talents. It’s no coincidence that Galifianakis ended the interview with a dig at George W. Bush, whose advisers would never have risked such an unscripted exchange. (Here’s Jon Stewart begging Bush, unsuccessfully, to come on his show during W.’s post-presidential book tour).

O’Reilly, shockingly, criticized the interview, arguing that “Abe Lincoln would not have done it.” Pareene pushes back:

The problem with the “Lincoln wouldn’t have done this” argument, though, is that Lincoln is just about the worst possible choice of historic presidents to use when you’re trying to attack a president for unseriousness. Abraham Lincoln was a notorious jokester. Books were published, during his presidency, purporting to be made up of his comical anecdotes and stories. (Many of the supposed Lincoln jokes were apocryphal, but, equally important, many of them weren’t.) Here’s one representative Lincoln joke. Here are eight more, including this honest-to-god fart joke:

1. The Farting Carver. (via William Herndon): “Well there was a party once, not far from here, which was composed of ladies and gentlemen. A fine table was set and the people were greatly enjoying themselves. Among the crowd was one of those men who had audacity — was quick-witted, cheeky and self-possessed — never off his guard on any occasion. After the men and women had enjoyed themselves by dancing, promenading, flirting, etc., they were told that the table was set. The man of audacity — quick-witted, self-possessed and equal to all occasions — was put at the head of the table to carve the turkeys, chickens and pigs. The men and women surrounded the table, and the audacious man being chosen carver whetted his great carving knife with the steel and got down to business & commenced carving the turkey, but he expended too much force & let a fart — a loud fart so that all the people heard it distinctly. As a matter of course it shocked all terribly. A deep silence reigned. However the audacious man was cool and entirely self-possessed; he was curiously and keenly watched by those who knew him well, they suspecting that he would recover in the end and acquit himself with glory. The man, with a kind of sublime audacity, pulled off his coat, rolled up his sleeves, put his coat deliberately on a chair, spat on his hands, took his position at the head of the table, picked up the carving knife and whetted it again, never cracking a smile nor moving a muscle of his face. It now became a wonder in the minds of all the men and women how the fellow was to get out of his dilemma. He squared himself and said loudly & distinctly: “Now, by God, I’ll see if I can’t cut up this turkey without farting.”

Weigel interviewed the Two Ferns director, Scott Aukerman:

Slate: How scripted was the president’s part of this? In some of the other videos with big stars—the Justin Bieber episode, the Oscar preview—they seem more flustered and less in on the joke. The president was ready with zingers. How much of that was really him?

Aukerman: The president knew what to expect, but at the same time he came up with a lot of improv stuff. He surprised us. The back and forth between Zach and the president, where they’re kind of verbally assaulting each other—that went very well. Everyone had a general idea of where the conversation was going to go. We knew what Zach wanted to do. We were pleasantly surprised by where the president took it. Honestly, it felt like a real episode of the show. There’s something about the nonscripted sense of surprise. We were ready to pull the plug if it wasn’t going to be a normal Between Two Ferns video.

Update from a reader:

I wonder if Bill O’Reilly remembers that time Ronald Reagan used humor to “defeat the Soviet Union?”

You think the GOP would lambast Reagan for making jokes on such a sober, serious, and existentially threatening issue? I mean, Yakov Smirnoff was basically an in-house joke writer feeding one-liners to Reagan.

First Sniff

A parody:

Amanda Hess pans the original:

[I]t’s an advertisement for clothes, and most of these strangers are professional performers who are experienced in acting out love, sex, and intimacy for crowds.

The cast includes models Natalia BonifacciIngrid Schram, and Langley Fox (daughter of actress Mariel Hemingway and sister of model Dree); musicians Z Berg of The Like, Damian Kulash of OK Go, Justin Kennedy of Army Navy, singer Nicole Simone, and singer-actress Soko (who also performed the melancholy indie music that accompanies the short); and actors Karim SalehMatthew CareyJill LarsonCorby Griesenbeck, Elisabetta TedlaLuke Cook, and Marianna Palka. Is it really unexpectedly touching that when gorgeous and charismatic Italian models, French actors, indie band leaders, and Hollywood royalty get together to kiss one another—under a soundtrack that prompts, “If you’re not ready for love, how can you be ready for life?”—the results are “beautiful”?

I’m betting that if Pilieva had filmed the video with a more diverse cast of all the people in the world who constitute “strangers,” the result would have been more unsettlingly comedic than searchingly romantic. It would also have been more interesting, if infinitely less sharable. The video peddles the fantasy that beauty can spring from an unexpected connection between two random people, but what it’s really showing us is the beauty of models making out.

Way to overthink a brilliant viral ad. More of this and less sponsored content, please.

Stop Fixating On The Pope?

Paul Baumann challenges the relentless focus on Francis and other Popes:

The truth is that the more the world flatters the Catholic Church by fixating on the papacy—and the more the internal Catholic conversation is monopolized by speculation about the intentions of one man—the less likely it is that the church will succeed in moving beyond the confusions and conflicts that have preoccupied it since the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). The church desperately needs to reclaim its cultural and spiritual equilibrium; it must find a density and richness of worship and mission and a renewed public presence, which far transcend mere loyalty to the pope. Lacking such equilibrium and self-possession, the church cannot find its true voice. But to find this voice, Catholics will have to turn not to Rome but toward one another, which is where both the problems and the solutions lie.

The fixation on the papacy trivializes the faith of Catholics, the vast majority of whom throughout history have had little knowledge of, and no contact with, any pope. Traditionally, the papacy was the court of last resort in adjudicating disagreements among the faithful. But in the last century or so it has increasingly become the avenue of first resort, determined to meddle in every theological or ecclesiological dispute.

I couldn’t agree more. And, of course, the paradox of this Pope is that, even though his personal, charismatic authority has soared, perhaps the key feature of his pontificate has been an attempt to demystify the Papacy, to remake the role as the Bishop of Rome, rather than the Supreme Pontiff. I laid out the evidence for this at some length in my profile of last December. In other words, one way to undermine this Pope’s actual agenda is to elevate him into a rock-star. Perhaps the secular world cannot resist. But Catholics should.

Can The IMF Save Ukraine?

Daniel Runde urges Congress to approve IMF quota reform, which would open up more money to stabilize Ukraine:

The United States needs to lead the response to the Ukraine crisis because Europe is divided over Ukraine. For the United States to lead, we need IMF quota reform to have the credibility to ride herd on the IMF package. The quota reform will double the “quick money” that is available to Ukraine to $1 billion and double the IMF’s stockpile of money for crises to over $700 billion.

As of today, Ukraine has limited hard currency reserves, and they are shrinking. It has a banking crisis and has limited the amounts of money that depositors can withdraw. The country is on the brink of financial collapse and a financial collapse will open it up to further radicalization and instability — and a weaker Ukraine is an even easier victim for Russia.

Peter Boone and Simon Johnson throw cold water on the idea that financial aid can solve the country’s problems:

This fight over Ukraine between Russia and the West has been going on since the 1990s. Each time the Ukrainian government changes, one side rushes to the fore, offering funds and support. The great problem for Ukraine, and those civil society-oriented individuals that fought for the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych, is that too much foreign support is forthcoming, making it too tempting for governments to switch allegiances, and extort funds from each side.

Any I.M.F. program will undoubtedly fail again unless this chronic struggle between Russia and the West over Ukraine is stopped. … The I.M.F.’s own analysis implies that large amounts of foreign funds, public or private, are not any kind of solution in this situation. But for political reasons the I.M.F. is likely to ignore the sensible conclusions drawn from its own experience.

Veronique de Rugy, no fan of the IMF to begin with, opposes quota reform:

[I]t would double the funds that the IMF is allowed to loan to any country it wishes, without much limit. For the United States, it means a 100 percent increase in its contribution to the IMF from its current level, $63 billion. According to the Congressional Research Service, “this would be the largest proportional quota increase in the history of the IMF.”

Is Obama A Phony On Torture?

US-POLITICS-OBAMA-WOMEN

I’m dismayed – and somewhat sickened – by the continuing passivity of the president on one of the most important issues the country faces: accountability for the gravest crimes under international law in the first decade of the 21st Century. This is a president who was propelled to two victories in part by those of us who saw the Cheney torture program as an indelible stain on this country that had to be exposed and expunged. And many of us were sympathetic to the difficulty a newly-elected president would be in – if he truly attempted to do right by history. To launch a gut-wrenching investigation into a government agency that remains responsible for our collective security is not something a president should do lightly when assuming the office. As so many presidents have noted over the years, the CIA is powerful enough to wreck a presidency if it tries hard enough – and the rancor may have consumed an administration as it was confronting the worst economic crisis in almost a century. And Obama desperately needed good intelligence to prevent another terror attack, which would have given the pro-torture right yet one more rhetorical point in favor of their disgusting and useless form of prisoner abuse.

But it’s now 2014. The one sliver of hope we have that the war crimes of the past can be accounted for and recovered from is the Senate Intelligence Committee’s thorough investigation of the matter. And yet the very possibility of the report being made public is now in jeopardy, as a result of the CIA’s stonewalling, harassment and obstruction of the Senate’s vital work. And yet the president still sits there, like a potted plant, refusing to put any serious pressure on the CIA to stop its stonewalling and get the report out. Yesterday, he gave the same spiel about his revulsion at torture and his desire to get the report declassified:

He said he was “absolutely committed” to the Senate investigation of the Bush-era practices, and planed to declassify the report as soon as it was finished. “In fact, I would urge them to go ahead and complete the report and send it to us and we will declassify those findings so that the American people can understand what happened in the past and that can help guide us as we move forward,” Obama said.

Wha-wha-wha-what? The Senate Committee completed the report fifteen fricking months ago! The only reason it has not been declassified and published is because the CIA has been engaged in aggressive stonewalling and obstruction – to the point at which Diane Feinstein was forced to denounce her beloved spies on the Senate floor this week. The president should not be telling the Senate Committee to finish their report (which they did over a year ago), but the CIA to quit the harassment of a committee’s vital work.

Then we discover that the White House has not actually fully cooperated with the Senate Committee:

The White House has been withholding for five years more than 9,000 top-secret documents sought by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for its investigation into the now-defunct CIA detention and interrogation program, even though President Barack Obama hasn’t exercised a claim of executive privilege. In contrast to public assertions that it supports the committee’s work, the White House has ignored or rejected offers in multiple meetings and in letters to find ways for the committee to review the records, a McClatchy investigation has found.

We’re told this has to do with sorting out executive branch privileges. Please. No executive branch privileges should be used to conceal the truth of what happened in such a grave matter. Obama has already refused to hold anyone accountable for the torture of the past – violating what’s left of the Geneva Conventions which he is constitutionally required to enforce. Now he’s so milque-toast about even accountability he’s withheld over 9,000 documents from the committee whose work he allegedly supports.

For a long time, I’ve given Obama the benefit of the doubt on this issue. It seems to me that that now has to end.

Because of his passivity and unseriousness with respect to the committee’s vital work, because of his elevation of John Brennan to the head of CIA (a man far more concerned with the agency’s reputation than with accounting for the torture he never protested or opposed at the time), and because of his continuing bullshit about what is truly delaying the report – he must now be considered an objective accomplice to the cover-up.

If his pusillanimity continues until the GOP captures the Senate and bottles up this report for ever, he will have failed one of the most important tests of his presidency. He will have lost the one key moment the United States has in confronting and dealing with some of the most serious crimes its highest officials have ever committed. He will be telling the world that, when push comes to shove, the United States cares more about keeping up appearances than with doing the hard work of truth, accountability and reconciliation. He will be ensuring that the one clear chance we had of finally accounting for these horrors was bungled or deliberately crippled by the government itself, in order to protect its own posterior. He will make it almost certain that torture will return.

That’s not just objectionable. It’s unforgivable.

(Photo: US President Barack Obama speaks during a meeting with women members of the US Congress in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington, DC, March 12, 2014. By Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images.)

The Marijuana Money Begins To Trickle In

Jeffrey Miron examines early data on marijuana taxes in Colorado:

In my 2010 Cato White Paper, I predicted that full legalization (federal and state) would generate roughly $55-60 million per year for Colorado.

Now just released data from Colorado for January, the first month of fully legal marijuana sales, show about $2 million from recreational marijuana and about $3.5 million for medical-plus-recreational marijuana.  The latter figure implies annual revenues of about $42 million.

This January figure may turn out to be misleading.  On one hand, the industry could grow over time, boosting revenues. On the other hand, initial hoopla over legalization may have inflated January sales.  And, longer term, sales in Colorado could decline if other states legalize or medicalize.

Sullum expects the tax revenue to grow for several reasons:

1. A relative handful of recreational pot stores opened for business in January.

2. Thanks to various artificial restrictions on supply, shortages were common.

3. After the first harvests of marijuana from plants grown especially for the recreational market, legal cannabis will be more plentiful.

4. Current cannabis consumers who were repelled by lines, shortages, and high prices will start switching from black-market dealers to legal outlets as the supply expands and prices fall.

5. After the initial adjustment period, new consumers will start venturing into the state-licensed pot shops.

Kyle Chayka looks at where the tax money will go:

Under the new recreational cannabis law, the first $40 million earned through the excise tax will go toward building new schools in the state. With the governor’s proposal, the remainder of the revenue will be funneled into educational programs around marijuana, “creating an environment where negative impacts on children from marijuana legalization are avoided completely,” Hickenlooper wrote in a letter to the budget committee.

Reality Check

Kevin Drum declares that an Obama endorsement “might be the kiss of death this year”:

Obama Endorsement

Nate Rawlings summarizes other parts of the poll:

President Obama’s job approval rating sank to a new low of 41 percent in a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released Tuesday, forecasting political headwinds for the Democratic Party in the months leading up to November’s midterm elections. … Neither party, however, has a solid edge in terms of popularity. Republicans fared one point better than Democrats – 44 percent to 43 percent – on the question of which party voters would rather have running Congress, which is within the poll’s margin of error.

Cillizza looks for historical parallels:

One in three registered voters in the NBC-WSJ poll said that their vote for Congress this fall will be intended to signal opposition to President Obama. Compare that to the 24 percent who said their vote would be a way to show support for Obama and you have the enthusiasm gap between the two party bases that likely sunk (Alex) Sink on Tuesday.

Again, past NBC-WSJ data is instructive. On the eve of the 2010 election, 35 percent said their vote was a way to show support for Obama while 34 percent said it was to show optimism.  The danger for Obama — and his party — is if his current numbers continue to tumble into a place where George W. Bush found himself in 2006; in a late October NBC-WSJ poll, 37 percent said their vote was to show opposition to Bush while just 22 percent said it was to show support.

Morrissey digs deeper into the data:

The problem for Obama and Democrats in this poll is that his personal likeability no longer keeps his overall numbers afloat. The “personal feelings” rating for Obama is now 41/44, with 15% neutral, in this poll. At the beginning of October, Obama scored 47/41, and before the August “red line” debacle it was 48/40. The “very positive” rating in this survey of 21% is the lowest of the series; a year ago it was 30%, and at the time of the last election it was 34%.

Kilgore points out that there are other polls:

Do you want to make a case that Obamacare is sinking the Obama presidency, portending a catastrophic Democratic performance in November? Well, there’s a new NBC/WSJ poll out showing Obama’s approval/disapproval ratio sinking to a new all-time low of 41/54. But if you want to argue that Obama and Democrats are slowly recovering from bad vibes over the initial Obamacare rollout, there’s also a new Bloomberg poll out showing Obama’s job approval ratio improving from 42/55 in December to 48/48 today.

Drone Regulations Fail To Launch

Susan Crawford knocks the FAA for claiming authority to regulate commercial drones but never writing any actual rules:

The Federal Aviation Administration has been asserting for years that it has broad authority over drones but hasn’t been able to come up with any rules covering their use. That didn’t stop the agency from fining a 29-year-old Swiss man, Raphael “Trappy” Pinker, for flying a Styrofoam drone over the University of Virginia. The FAA said that Trappy’s stunt, carried out in the course of filming an advertisement for the university’s medical school, amounted to a dangerous airplane flight. Last week, however, the National Transportation Safety Board declared that the agency couldn’t bar the commercial use of drones without conducting an official rule-making process.

Back in 2012, Congress told the FAA to put guidelines in place by 2013 and have a plan for detailed drone regulation by 2015. The agency will miss both of those deadlines. And its dithering has put it in an awkward legal position: The FAA may have ample potential legal authority over drones, particularly when it comes to safety, but its inability to hammer out the details is keeping it from taking a stand on their commercial use.

Josh Marshall expects drones to require a new approach to air traffic:

What interests me just as much as the privacy dimension, however, is how the proliferation of drones is about to completely challenge the way we keep flying objects safe in the air and change fundamentally how we manage air traffic. … There will just be too many things flying around and too many not under any kind of direct human control. So the FAA is in the midst of planning a new system in which every flying object or nearly every flying object has to have technology on board which constant sends out GPS-based notifications about where it is.

Frederic Lardinois thinks the ruling could encourage the administration to move faster:

For the time being, then, the legal situation around drones remains as murky as ever. While it seems plenty of real estate companies are shooting photos of houses from small quadcopters and they remain in heavy use for video production and other uses, the FAA continues to argue that commercial drone usage is essentially illegal.

Because it’s perfectly okay to fly these same small drones for non-commercial reasons (though the FAA would prefer it if people at least followed a few common-sense guidelines), the FAA seems somewhat out of step with reality on this issue.

The FAA wasn’t expected to make any rules for commercial drone usage before the end of 2015. Maybe all this activity around this court case now will get it to speed up the process a bit.

Chart Of The Day

public_v_ir_scholars

A reader writes:

I’ve been closely following your thread on “Right-Sizing the Military” and I thought you might be interested in a poll of International Relations scholars in the U.S. that my colleagues and I recently conducted. Our goal was to see what folks who study these issues for a living think about the proposed defense budget. (We also asked about a variety of issues Russia, Ukraine, and Syria.) We heard back from 900 IR scholars (out of a approximately 2,800 in the U.S.). Those who responded were statistically indistinguishable from those who did not. The margin of error is +/- 2.7 percent.

With regard to the defense budget, 75 percent of IR scholars we surveyed said we spend too much on defense, 20 percent said we spend the right amount, and 6 percent said we spend too little. This contrasts sharply with the public sentiment as recorded by a recent gallup poll (see the attached figure). Further, 27 percent said the proposed Hagel/Obama budget would enhance U.S. security, and 53 percent said it would have no effect.

We’ve published some of the results and a short essay explaining the broader goals of our on-going survey project here.  Our full survey report is in this pdf.  Even more detail on our project is in this one.