Author: Andrew Sullivan

Matt Yglesias has a plan to finesse the Democratic position:

I think climate hawks are making a dangerous mistake by not engaging more deeply with deficit hawks. One thing that both the Simpson-Bowles and Domenici-Rivlin proposals make clear is that some conservatives now are prepared to concede the need for higher taxes. But they want a hefty chunk of that revenue to come from regressive sources, and they want at least some progressive votes for it. Now, as Paul Krugman argues regressive taxes aren’t as bad as many people think.

But the fact of the matter is that a VAT as proposed by Domenici-Rivlin is always going to be a very hard sell for the left. This, tough, is where climate hawks can come to the rescue of the cherished ambitions of the center-right. Swap out a VAT and swap in a tax on climate pollution, and we become a constituency that’s not just “willing” to swallow the tax but eager to do so. Putting a price on climate pollution isn’t the only thing to be done in an environmental policy, but getting it done would be a huge step forward.

A reader writes:

I think the people "defending" Willow's slur are missing the point. I think the problem, and what we should be criticizing, is Sarah Palin's lack of response to this.

Not because Willow said something stupid and cruel, but because Willow participated in and contributed to the culture that's driving so many gay teens to suicide. It's bad enough that Palin's kids would say something like that, and it's easy to criticize her parenting abilities when her offspring jump so quickly to cruelty. But the larger issue is that not only has Palin raised children who would say something this stupid and cruel, but that she won't refudiate it.

And it's not that she'd need to publicly scold her daughter; she should take this as an opportunity to talk about how this sort of childish cruelty isn't actually very childish, that small acts of bullying add up to a culture of hatred that's literally killing kids. And that, while we don't need to litigate a teenager on national television for a stupid thing she said, parents do need to talk to their children and make it clear that small acts like this can have a more extreme outcome than you intend.

So I don't think we should rake Willow herself over the coals for this, but neither can we use "childishness" as her defense. The problem here is with Sarah Palin, not Willow, and with her refusal to take this moment to speak compassionately towards the gay teens who contemplate suicide because kids like Willow are so quick to call someone a faggot. But, of course, this would require Palin to speak publicly out of compassion instead of self-interest, and that's clearly never going to happen.

From Palin's Facebook page from February 1, for the record:

Just as we’d be appalled if any public figure of Rahm’s stature ever used the “N-word” or other such inappropriate language, Rahm’s slur on all God’s children with cognitive and developmental disabilities – and the people who love them – is unacceptable, and it’s heartbreaking. […]

As my friend in North Andover says, “This isn’t about politics; it’s about decency. I am not speaking as a political figure but as a parent and as an everyday American wanting my child to grow up in a country free from mindless prejudice and discrimination, free from gratuitous insults of people who are ostensibly smart enough to know better…

So far from Palin: dead silence.

Neofascist neocon Michael Goldfarb rarely disappoints:

This may well be a hoax. The basics: a couple put up an online poll to allegedly decide whether or not the wife, who is pregnant, should have an abortion. Allahpundit runs through the possibilities: 

Gawker’s three theories: (1) They’re attention whores, (2) it’s a pro-life satire on how casually some people treat abortion, (3) they’re serious. I’m thinking it has to be number two. First, if they really are pro-choice, this is the worst possible thing they could do to advance that cause short of, say, filming themselves high-fiving during the procedure. Second, per a bit of background provided by Life News, they’ve already lost two pregnancies recently to miscarriage and the mother lost another when she was 20. A normal couple in that position (especially one with no children) would be desperate to see this one carried to term, not cavalier to the point of treating it as some sort of morbid civics experiment. But then, admittedly, no matter which of the three theories proves true, this is no normal couple.

Amanda Marcotte agrees that it's likely a pro-life stunt.

Dave Barry recently went through a naked scanner. He talks to Melissa Block about the experience:

BLOCK: But word came back you have a blurred groin. Did you know what –

Mr. BARRY: Yeah. They were letting everyone else go. Everyone else had a nice, sharp groin, I guess. But when I went through, they pulled me aside and put me in this – kind of like little pen. And after like – I don't know – three or four minutes of standing there, I asked one of them: Why am I here? And he said, you have a blurred groin. And I went, what? Because you hate to find this out at the airport.

BLOCK: Yeah, you would want to know.

Mr. BARRY: And I had just had a physical – I mean, literally, two weeks earlier -which was pretty thorough, if you know what I'm saying.

Mexico's regional newspapers aren't even reporting on gang members anymore:

[Regional journalists] said that with the central government unable to protect prosecutors and police, they feel forced to chose between personal safety and professional ethics. …The analysis found that newspapers have continued to fill their pages with stories on crime. But in paper after paper, gangland-style executions went uncovered while reporters filed stories on minor crimes not related to the drug conflict.

(Photo: A forensic official checks the corpses of three men and a woman, found in Acapulco, Mexico, on October 27, 2010. An estimated 28,000 people have died as a result of drug related violence since President Felipe Calderon came to office in 2006 and unleashed the military against the drug cartels. By Pedro Pardo/AFP/Getty Images)

Steve Smith reports:

Scots gangsters are using "waterboarding" terror tactics to torture rivals. Hardened crooks have copied the CIA-style interrogation technique where water is poured on to a cloth covering the victim's mouth and nose to simulate drowning.

Massie adds:

You may not weep at the thought of drug dealers behaving in this fashion; you might however be disappointed that they're taking their cue from the government of the United States of America.

The city on a hill has become a dungeon in a secret site.

The American Human Development Project has created an incredible interactive map showing health, education, and income state by state.

(Hat tip: Reihan)

Larison is frustrated by the GOP stalling of START:

As Republican numbers go up, the chances of the treaty’s ratification go down. We all know this. This isn’t a choice between ratifying in December and ratifying in January. It is a choice between voting on the treaty, and delaying consideration of the treaty on the Senate floor for months or even longer. If the treaty is worth supporting and should be ratified, it really does matter that this happen now. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs describes the treaty as “essential” to national security. Maybe he’s exaggerating for effect, but I don’t think that’s true in this case. I don’t know of other things that are deemed “essential” to national security that can be put off until much later and perhaps indefinitely.

But, as we know, the only truly coherent principle behind the current GOP is not a strong defense or a balanced budget or reduced spending. It is simply making Barack Obama a one-term president. Compared with that, what's so important about START?

"If we ratify this treaty, we’re going to have a verification regime in place to track Russia’s strategic nuclear weapons, including U.S. inspectors on the ground. If we don’t, then we don’t have a verification regime -– no inspectors, no insights into Russia’s strategic arsenal, no framework for cooperation between the world’s two nuclear superpowers. As Ronald Reagan said, we have to trust, but we also have to verify. In order for us to verify, we’ve got to have a treaty," – President Obama.

Sprung celebrates. Peter Baker analyzes. Clinton's got Obama's back. If Obama gets START ratified and DADT repealed, this will not be a lame duck session.