Author: Andrew Sullivan

A reader writes:

That graphic is interesting, but it seems a bit misleading. 100 million hours may have been spent creating Wikipedia — but a great many articles are based off the fact that people spent 200 million hours watching TV, updating pages on LOST, updating pages on The Golden Girls, writing biographies for M*A*S*H actors, etc.  And I wrote some of my finest theological writing last year because I'd spent 50 hours watching Battlestar Galactica and doing some reflection in response on the nature of humanity and what constitutes a human person.

So while I'm sure a great many of those 200 million hours weren't spent on deep thinking, I'm equally sure that labeling the entire 200 million hours as a waste of cognitive time isn't accurate either.  And I'm also certain, after many hours spent vegging by following endless Wikipedia links and editing in trivial information, that not every hour spent creating Wikipedia was time well spent.

Brendan Nyhan counters Matt Bai:

What Bai doesn't seem to realize is that elections do not ever indicate the will of the people in some well-defined sense (there is a vast technical literature on this point). The best political science research to date convincingly argues that mandates should be viewed as a social construction. Moreover, it's not clear that presidents enact legislation intended to make them more popular. Contemporary presidents tend to pursue the agenda of their party, not the median voter. Finally, the public mood tends to shift in the opposite direction of the party in power. For all of these reasons, the appealing notion that presidential candidates will propose an agenda, enact that agenda in office, and be rewarded by the electorate for doing so rarely occurs in practice.

Jacob Hacker et al project that economic insecurity is reaching news highs. Drum summarizes:

Basically, [the Economic Security Index] measures the number of people who have experienced a major loss in income (25% or more) — either due to a decline in income or large out-of-pocket medical expenses or both — and who lack adequate financial wealth to buffer the drop. By their projection, the number of Americans in this category is now over 20%, far higher than in any previous recession.

From a reader in Shenzhen, a Chinese export hub:

There's two issues with that China "wage" graph. The first is that it compares wages using PPP, purchasing power parity, which is a number adjusted for cost of living. While this is a fine chart to show the relative average buying power of Chinese vs. Vietnamese, it doesn't do anything to show the actual GDP per capita, which could potentially tell you something about wages ($3678 for China, $1060 for Vietnam). Why not just compare real wages, or even minimum wages?

The second issue is the assumption that wages are really all that important.

For a $600 iPhone 4 made in Shenzhen, less than $7 went to wages. What China has, and other countries listed don't, is a massive and recent investment in modern infrastructure and entire comprehensive regional supply chains. It's not just that the iPhone is assembled in Shenzhen, it's that most of the non-Foxconn chips inside it are manufactured nearby as well. China Law Blog recently did a post on this topic, showing how political stability and corruption in nearby competitors will likely ensure China's manufacturing dominance into the near future.

What annoys a lot of China watchers, especially those living and working here, are the little mistakes that add up when people without a lot of experience in China write about it, especially when they drop nuance make big points.

Today on the Dish, Argentina sealed the deal for marriage equality. Andrew took a step back from the Breitbart-Sherrod scandal to revisit Obama's long game. Remaining race commentary from Josh Marshall, Adam Serwer, Conor Friedersdorf, E.D. Kain, and Ron Radosh. Drum pointed the finger at Fox. Andrew also shook his head at the latest Journo-list revelations and Fallows weighed in. 

Newt slithered into the NYC mosque mess, Yglesias smacked him around, and Larison found higher ground. In other Palin coverage, readers pounced on her NYC/Real America hypocrisy, Friedersdorf took a turn, Roger Simon concurred with the Dish on 2012, and Noah Millman shivered. Chin-scratching Trig posts here and here.

Sharron Angle continued to embarrass herself in the face of the press. Richard Silverstein went to bat for Andrew over Tablet's smears, a reader dissented over his take on the rape-by-deception case, and Frum reminded us (with reader feedback) of Israel's strengths to the US. Andrew held up the Cameron-led coalition as a model for Republicans.

Kinsley revived the estate tax debate and Glenn Reynolds stood up to the police state. Another, broader look at the WaPo series here. Dreher engaged Rauch on the move towards marriage equality. Andrew played with conversation. 

Mike Tyson talked shit about his tattoo. Crazy campaign ad here and a fun new blog here. MHB here, VFYW here, and FOTD here.

— C.B.

Noah Millman takes her seriously. His fear:

If Sarah Palin wins the Presidency, then she reshapes her party to suit her preferences. And anybody who came out strongly against her will be in the doghouse for years. She is not a “with malice toward none, with charity for all” type of Republican.

Razib Khan gives her a 25% chance at the nomination while Larison continues to believe that "Palin has no chance of winning."

Building off analysis by Myriam Benraad, Joel Wing estimates the terrorist group's staying power:

Benraad believes that Al Qaeda in Iraq will still be around for the foreseeable future. One reason is that the group is largely Iraqi now. At first, it was mostly made up of and led by foreigners like Zarqawi and Masri. Today it is almost all locals.  Another factor is that in June 2009 U.S. forces withdrew from Iraq’s cities. That gave more room for the Islamists to operate in. The Americans are due to drawdown to just 50,000 troops by August 31, 2010 as well, which could increase Al Qaeda’s opportunities to sow mayhem. The group also plays upon the lingering resentment amongst some Sunnis that the United States is an occupier. That wont end even when the U.S. withdraws as Al Qaeda has painted the new Iraqi government as American puppets and the new occupier. The United States has also been emptying its prisons as it pulls out. Some of these detainees came into contact with or were recruited by Al Qaeda while they were incarcerated. The American military claims that the recidivism rate amongst these former convicts is low, but the Iraqis claim otherwise.

Friedersdorf extends Palin's logic:

The closest strip club to Ground Zero happens to be two blocks away, a fact that has nothing to do with our reverence for the place where so many Americans were killed by terrorists. As you've probably noticed, it doesn't even make sense to call it The Ground Zero Strip Club.

But it makes no less sense than naming an Islamic community center "The Ground Zero Mosque"–as much of the media have done–because it's going to be located a couple blocks away.

Brian Goldsmith finds this doozy from Bill Cooper, a "GOP congressional candidate in a tight primary (in a solid Republican district) to replace Rep. Pete Hoekstra":

Dreher, who is opposed to marriage equality, praises Rauch's article on the social forces fighting for and against same-sex marriage:

Gay marriage is the final act of the Sexual Revolution, the thing that institutionalizes it. If you think the Sexual Revolution (which Rauch cannily defines as global information culture + birth control) was on balance a good thing, you're happy with this; if not, not. What's so insightful about Rauch's analysis — and he's quite clear which side he's on — is that he explains why conservative first principles on the meaning of family in society lead logically to opposing gay marriage. I have never read a more clear, cogent, fair-minded explanation of why social conservatives oppose gay marriage.

It's the same reason they oppose modernity as a whole. Which means they are not social conservatives. They are religious reactionaries.