Author: Andrew Sullivan

Fallows explains the slow demise of the newsweekly.

As often, Shafer's best lines come next to his by-line:

When will Slate die? I give it until 2032, when it will be replaced with a neural feed from Christopher Beam's brainstem.

Exhibit A from a WaPo online chat:

Boston, Mass.:  Here is my question for the Tea Party. What are your solutions to today's problems? For example, I hear the word socialism used alot and government getting too big. But then what would you cut? Or what would the Tea Party members have done about the financial crisis from 2008? I assume that they would not vote to bailout the banks, but what would they do if the biggest banks in the world go under?

Judson Phillips: First, cut taxes to increase economic growth. That works everytime. Second, let's go through the entire federal budget and eliminate programs that are consumed by waste, fraud or abuse. Start eliminating them.

Seriously? I mean: seriously? We're talking about a debt larger than we've ever contemplated outside of the Second World War and he's talking about eliminating "waste"? And I thought Glenn Reynolds was dishonest … Of course, we later find out that defense is off the table. But he does mention entitlements, when challenged further:

Judson Phillips: Let's start with entitlement programs. They are the biggest source of out of control spending. Then let's go to congressional pork programs.

Pork is a teensy part of the problem. He does later argue that social security disability checks are the source of the spending problem. Yep: seriously, that's his one actual specific recommendation, apart from cutting taxes further! Yes, this tea-partier is still drinking the Laffer curve Kool-Aid.  What does he specifically propose for entitlement cuts that come close to the scale of the problem? Nada. And he doesn't even have the excuse of being a pathetic politician trying to get elected. He's not running for office; he's heading up a protest movement against government spending – and he yet he can't offer any serious specifics on what he'd cut that would solve the problem. In fact, he barely seems to have thought about the actual fiscal choices before us for a split second.

Taxes? Pure denial of reality:

Washington, D.C.: Judson — Are you willing to admit that taxes have actually gone down for the vast majority of Americans under President Obama?

Judson Phillips: No

Of course not. And the past has to be airbrushed as well:

Alexandria, Va.: Are you willing to admit that marginal tax rates went up for the majority of Americans during the Reagan administration? Do you know the difference between average and marginal tax rates? Could you answer a simple econ 101 questions regarding the impact of progressive taxation on the labor-leisure choice?

Judson Phillips: No.

From the NYT yesterday:

“You cannot really engage in that conversation,” said Phillip Moore, a teacher in this Detroit suburb who has embraced strong opinions on many topics in his life — on politics, education, even religion — but avoids the subject of Israel at gatherings of his Jewish relatives.

“You raise a question about the security forces or the settlements and you are suddenly being compared to a Holocaust denier,” said Mr. Moore, 62. “It’s just not a rational discussion, so I keep quiet.”

I share his pain. But the hysterics are not representative:

In a survey taken after the diplomatic skirmish of March, the American Jewish Committee — the heart of the traditional mainstream — found little change in the level of Jewish support for Mr. Obama’s handling of relations with Israel. The survey found that 55 percent approved of his handling of Israeli relations, compared with 54 percent last year.

Sportswriter Patten Fuqua pauses to reflect on the unprecedented devastation to his city:

But let’s look at the other side of the coin for a moment. A large part of the reason that we are being ignored is because of who we are. Think about that for just a second. Did you hear about looting? Did you hear about crime sprees? No…you didn’t. You heard about people pulling their neighbors off of rooftops. You saw a group of people trying to move two horses to higher ground. No…we didn’t loot. Our biggest warning was, “Don’t play in the floodwater.” When you think about it…that speaks a lot for our city. A large portion of why we were being ignored was that we weren’t doing anything to draw attention to ourselves. We were handling it on our own.

Photo by Jeff Gentner/Getty Images. The Big Picture has many more. Musical slideshows here and here.

Information Is Beautiful joins the party.

Christine Rosen sounds a little uptight:

Today, what used to cause embarrassment now elicits little more than a collective shrug.  In our eagerness to broadcast our authentic experiences and have our individuality endorsed, we reject embarrassment as if it were some fusty trapping of a bygone age.  But we haven't eliminated embarrassment; we have only upped the ante.  "Your slip is showing" used to be the most embarrassing sartorial faux pas a lady could commit.  Now we regularly witness "nip slip" from female celebrities whose shirts mysteriously migrate south during public appearances – or during Super Bowl halftime shows. As the boundary between public and private has dissolved, so too has our ability to distinguish between embarrassing and appropriate public behavior.  The result is a society often bewildered by attempts to impose any standards at all.

If embarrassment is over, why is The Office such a huge hit? Why has the last decade seen a surge in embarrassment humor? The objects of embarrassment may have shifted, and no doubt the level of embarrassment in a far looser, less fastidious society has, as Rosen argues, sunk. But the beast with red cheeks will always blush. And living in a society terrified of the faux pas is a pain in the ass.

Jeremy Jackson’s newly released talk on our relationship with the ocean seems appropriate given the oil spill in the gulf:

Bruce Schneier's answer:

There are actually several answers to this question. One, terrorist attacks are harder to pull off than popular imagination — and the movies — lead everyone to believe. Two, there are far fewer terrorists than the political rhetoric of the past eight years leads everyone to believe. And three, random minor terrorist attacks don't serve Islamic terrorists' interests right now.

Today on the Dish we rounded up commentary on the eve of the election. The Tories continued to surge, Johann Hari harangued Cameron, the WSJ illustrated Labour's big-government record, Chris Bertram endorsed the party out of class sympathy,  Larison distinguished the British left from the American left, Bernstein kept up talk over electoral reform, and Chris Brooke prepped us for a hung parliament.

In terror talk, Goldblog sized up the perception of the Times Square bomber, Andrew marveled at the madness of McCain and Lieberman, David Brooks gave props to the president's poise, and Steve Coll talked sense. We also learned that a Muslim immigrant had alerted authorities about the bomb.

Palin antics here. More scrutiny of the Arizona law revisions here and here. Even the Phoenix Suns sounded off. DC passed a medical marijuana bill. A horrific video from the drug war here. A forerunner of reparative therapy unloaded some gay baggage. Anna Lappé countered Robert Paarlberg on organic farming in Africa, Tom Laskawy tore into superweeds, and readers contributed to the race debate.

A letter from Nashville here. Epistemic closure watch here. Hewitt award here and creepy ad here. Bear-blogging here and here. Conan expletives here, tea with Tyson here, and kick-ass couch forts here.

— C.B.