Author: Andrew Sullivan

Have you seen the condition of pensions guaranteed to state and municipal workers? Yikes.

The congressman defends himself from K-Thug. Krugman hits back:

Notice that Ryan does not address the issue of the zero nominal growth assumption, and how that assumption – not entitlement reforms – is the key to his alleged spending cuts by 2020.

I also see that Ryan is perpetuating the runaround on revenue estimates. If you read either this article or his original response to the Tax Policy Center, you could easily get the impression that nobody would do a revenue estimate, that CBO said it was JCT’s job, and JCT balked. Even Nate Silver has fallen for this.

He also side kicks Ezra for backing Ryan's role in the debate. Megan steps in:

[I]t is not correct to accuse Ryan of deliberate dishonesty; he asked the CBO to score it, and they turned him down.  Nor is it correct to imply that this is somehow out of the ordinary.  If you supported the health care plan, you supported the exact same process that Ryan is now proposing to use to tweak his proposal.

Fareed Zakaria puts his money where his mouth is and returns an ADL award. I hope it starts a trend. They must have given many awards to many distinguished people. Those who believe in freedom of religion should, in my view, follow Fareed's example. Money quote:

[D]oes Foxman believe that bigotry is OK if people think they’re victims? Does the anguish of Palestinians, then, entitle them to be anti-Semitic?

Foxman digs in:

If the stated goal was to advance reconciliation and understanding, we believe taking into consideration the feelings of many victims and their families, of first responders and many New Yorkers, who are not bigots but still feel the pain of 9/11, would go a long way to achieving that reconciliation.

Greg Sargent interjects:

The "stated" goal, eh? … This goes considerably further than ADL's initial statement, which didn't question the motives behind the center. In other words, this is no longer just about the feelings of those still wounded by 9/11, as ADL initially claimed. With this response, ADL has strayed even further from its own stated mission. After all, the group says its "ultimate purpose" is to "put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens."

The ADL is becoming a force in our society for the promotion of bigotry. It should be renamed the Muslim Defamation League.

An Alaskan confronts celebrity muck-raker, Sarah Palin – in Homer, Alaska:

(Re-posted with right embed. Apologies.)

It is painful for me to read my old friend Christopher Caldwell's screed against the Cordoba Initiative, a complex two blocks from Ground Zero which will include a mosque within it. Essentially, Chris believes that Islam is an exception to the First Amendment's protection of religious faith. Here's his argument:

Including Islam within the fold of traditional western religious tolerance is not business-as-usual. It is an experiment. Our Lockean ideas of religious tolerance had their origins in the 16th century (the peace of Augsburg) and the 17th (the peace of Westphalia). Those understandings regulated relations between Christian sects and were steadily liberalised. Judaism later proved assimilable into this system in the US, but not, to put it mildly, everywhere in the west.

Islam – which is, like Christianity but unlike contemporary Judaism, an evangelising and expansionist religion – is a bigger challenge. A radical school of it views the US as its main enemy. Because that school is amply funded by Arabian oil, there is a standing fear that radicals will capture any large international project involving Islam, no matter how good its original intentions.

Notice, as Andrew Sprung does, the guilt by association. Regardless of the nature of a particular mosque, even the most peaceful, mainstream and American Muslim community is now an inherent potential terror threat. There is a "fear" that any mosque could be coopted by Wahhabist money. Therefore, no mosques are safe.

This, of course, is exactly the argument that was made about Catholicism in England (and by Locke in his famous Letter!) in the sixteen and seventeenth centuries – particularly after the Gunpowder Plot (England's foiled 9/11 of 1605). The argument was that because Catholics owed obedience to a foreign ruler, the Pope, they were not so much a religion as a cult allied to a foreign force. For the Vatican, read the House of Saud.

And, yes, many Protestants of the day did regard Catholicism as a cult – and yes one "radical school" within it nearly lew up the Houses of Parliament. The religious wars that followed kept Catholics out of British public life for centuries; fomented conflict and hatred that still burns on in places like Northern Ireland, centuries later; and this precedent was clearly in the Founders' minds when they established the First Amendment. We have, in other words, been here before. And we have a debate between those who believe that the West is too weak to stand up to Islam and those of us who believe that if the West sticks to our core values, we will be able in the end both to defang Jihadism and help nurture Islam into modernity and prove by our actions that we are not hostile to Islam as such. In fact, I would argue with George W. Bush, that not making this distinction, conflating all of Islam with al Qaeda and Wahhabism, is a gift to bin Laden. The neoconservative right have unwittingly empowered al Qaeda more effectively than al Qaeda could ever have done on its own.

I find it preposterous and self-defeating to describe one of the three great monotheisms in human civilization as a cult that cannot be integrated into Western ideas of religious freedom. Moreover, I think the attempt to stigmatize, isolate and collectively punish all American Muslims as all potential Fifth Columnists is a McCarthyite move that will profoundly weaken our ability to isolate the extremists, appeal to the middle and survive this upsurge in medieval murderousness that is the essence of al Qaeda. 

One side in this country clearly wants a war of religion. They have been given permission by their leaders, Gingrich and Palin and Peretz and Caldwell and the bigots at the ADL. And so we should not be surprised when the following begins to happen … and spreads like wildfire:

At one time, neighbors who did not want mosques in their backyards said their concerns were over traffic, parking and noise — the same reasons they might object to a church or a synagogue. But now the gloves are off.

In all of the recent conflicts, opponents have said their problem is Islam itself. They quote passages from the Koran and argue that even the most Americanized Muslim secretly wants to replace the Constitution with Islamic Shariah law…. In late June, in Temecula, Calif., members of a local Tea Party group took dogs and picket signs to Friday prayers at a mosque that is seeking to build a new worship center on a vacant lot nearby.

I believe history shows that such wars are extraordinarily dangerous, destructive and hostile to faith. Another side sees this conflict as a war for religious freedom. As we watch the GOP become a religious party bent on imposing its religious views on civil society and determined to wage war against Islamic countries as a crusade to prove our own superiority, it feels very Weimar to me.

But what's most Weimar about all of this is the role of the intellectuals in aiding and abetting this ugliness, in the deeply hidden contempt for the democratic West that lies within the neoconservative project. They believe in one thing: war. And they are doing all they can to expand and provoke it.

Another murderous few days in Iraq – as the political elite is paralyzed by sectarianism (that the surge was supposed to have mitigated), and as al Qadea, barely a presence in Iraq before the war, retains a foothold. Can anyone say that America's interests have been advanced an iota by this trillion dollar, mass casualty fiasco? Only Iran's. Only Iran's.

Steve Clemons pushes back against Dennis Ross:

The United States and its core allies have decided to try and remake parts of the world and as might be expected, much of the Arab Middle East and the global Muslim community have institutionalized grievances about their place in the modern world and wonder if the West values their lives and societies. The Palestinian mess is for many of these people the packaged microcosm of their anger about exploitation and humiliation by the West and by their own governments.

Polling shows the same thing. If we want to win the war on Jihadism, we have to separate the Muslim middle from the trust-fund religious lunatics. For the Muslim middle, rightly or wrongly, the Israel-Palestine question is the key test of the Wests' seriousness in starting a new relationship with the Muslim world to advance our interests and isolate the extremists. In this sense, those who are resisting any advance on the issue, or staying in the same exhausted place they have been their entire lives – denying that Israel/Palestine has any impact on broader American interests – are the unwitting allies of al Qaeda and Hamas and Hezbollah. 

The Republican party's leadership is, in other words, an anachronistic danger to long-term American security. If they want a Christian-Muslim war, as they seem to, then their obduracy on Israel (think McCain and Lieberman and Schumer backing the far right government of Netanyahu over their own president) and their bigotry toward American Muslims (think the appalling conflation of all Muslims as terrorists) is one way of bringing it about.

“We believe that a conservative value is stable relationships and stable community and loving individuals coming together and forming a basis that is a building block of our society, which includes marriage,” – Ted Olson, on Fox News Sunday.

Carr checks the numbers:

To give an honest accounting of the effects of the Net on media consumption, you need to add the amount of time that people spend consuming web media to the amount of time they already spend consuming TV and other traditional media. Once you do that, it becomes clear that the arrival of the web has not reduced the time people spend consuming media but increased it substantially. As consumption-oriented Internet devices, like the iPad, grow more popular, we will likely see an even greater growth in media consumption. The web, in other words, marks a continuation of a long-term cultural trend, not a reversal of it.