Category: The Dish

Brian Riedl has some salient data out today. Money quote:

"More broadly, the accusation that poor families are shouldering more of the tax burden while receiving less of the spending is empirically false. From 1979 through 2003, the total federal tax burden on the highest-earning quintile (one-fifth or 20 percent) of Americans — who earn 52 percent of all income — rose from 56 percent to 66 percent of all taxes. Their share of individual income taxes jumped from 65 percent to 85 percent. On the spending side, antipoverty spending has leaped from 9.1 percent of all federal spending in 1990 to a record 16.3 percent in 2004."

Bush has been shoveling other people’s money to the poor like the big government liberal he is. More here.

Moscow has now canceled its Gay Pride parade. It was canceled after the chief Muslim leader in Russia warned that marchers would be "bashed" if they dared to walk the streets. Money quote:

"Earlier this week Chief Mufti Talgat Tadzhuddin warned that Russia’s Muslims would stage violent protests if the march went ahead. "If they come out on to the streets anyway they should be flogged. Any normal person would do that – Muslims and Orthodox Christians alike … [The protests] might be even more intense than protests abroad against those controversial cartoons." The cleric said the Koran taught that homosexuals should be killed because their lifestyle spells the extinction of the human race and said that gays had no human rights."

Notice this is not al Qaeda. It is the official mainstream Muslim leadership. Bob Wright today makes the case for self-censorship to avoid offense to religious groups and others. In principle, this makes sense. Gratuitous, arbitrary offense of someone else’s faith is not a laudable exercize of free speech. It’s an abuse of such freedom. But context is vital.  Bob cites an example of portraying Jesus with a crown of thorns made up of dynamite sticks, after an abortion clinic bombing. I’d say that’s a perfectly legitimate comment after an act of violence performed in the name of a religious figure who preached non-violence. Many Christians would share the sentiments of the cartoonist. It’s ironic, as the Muhammad cartoon was. And if it’s defensible in that case, it is exponentially more so in the case of Islam in 2006.

The world has been terrorized for decades now by murderers who specifically cite Muhammad as their inspiration. It is completely legitimate speech to point that out. Not to point it out – to remain silent in the face of it – is an act of denial.The reason that so many Muslims are offended is not just because any depiction of Muhammad is taboo; but because the conflation of Islam and murder is now firmly fixed in the global consciousness. I can understand why the repetition of that fact should upset many peace-loving Muslims. But that is not the fault of cartoonists. It’s the fault of the Muslim terrorists, and the failure of mainstream Muslims to condemn them sufficiently, ostracize them completely, and prevent them effectively from further mayhem. At this point, in my judgment, further appeasement of these religious terrorists is counter-productive – and actually enables the extremists in their simultaneous intimidation of moderate Muslims.

To take another example: Would Bob urge the gay marchers in Moscow not to parade, because it offends so many religious people, Orthodox and Muslim? Should gay people censor themselves to avoid offending others? Should women who object to the brutal subjugation of half the human race in many Islamic societies silence themselves? Maybe Bob would indeed argue for self-censorship in these cases. Maybe he wouldn’t. After all, Islam is very clear about the fate of homosexuals and the role of women. But self-censorship is a slippery slope. Practising it after acts of mass murder runs a real risk of inviting more of them. As ACT-UP used to say, "Silence = Death." Which is why the Islamists want as much silence as possible.

It was only a matter of time, but now a Muslim cleric is offering a large sum of money to kill a Western cartoonist. And why would he not? The Western media has shown that one of its criteria for not publishing material is the security of its own professionals. Threatening the media works. And so it will grow.

Glenn Reynolds has an interesting post, citing Marshall Wittman, about how both the religious right and the religious (i.e. intolerant, doctrinaire) left have polarized discourse in this country, and policed dissidence from the party line. Marshall thinks the left is worse. Like Marshall, I’ve experienced vitriol from both sides in my time. I will say this: the hate and viciousness directed toward me from the left in the 1990s for daring to be a gay man who was not a liberal does indeed exceed the hate and viciousness of the right for a small-c conservative who has become alarmed by the excesses and errors of the Bush administration. No right-wing group has picketed a book-signing with posters depicting my face behind the cross-hairs of a gun, as the gay left did. No one on the right has gone nuclear on my private life, as the gay left did. No one on the right has threatened to find me in Ptown and split my skull open, or called me the anti-Christ, as some on the gay left have. Yes, I get homophobic hate mail from the right all the time; and many conservative blogs have blackballed or slimed or smeared me in various ways. But that’s, sadly, what you get for being provocative and opinionated on the web. Bottom line: Hugh Hewitt is not as hateful as Eric Alterman, as any reader can see for themselves.

So why my recent concentration on the far right? It’s pretty simple: they’re in power. They control all branches of government and a hefty chunk of the media. They deserve to. They did all this legitimately and democratically. But, in my book, that means an independent writer should concentrate more on that extreme right now, while not ignoring the other, because they’re the ones running the country. I guess I’m also more angered by the right these days because I care more about conservatism than about liberalism. It’s my philosophy, damnit, which means I get more upset when I see it desecrated or abandoned. And that also helps explain my being more touchy about being called a leftist than some. That may be a failing of mine. I’m an Irishman, bred in no-holds British debating rules, who has a bit of an inner drama queen. Glenn is a low-key law-professor with a dry sense of humor. Styles vary. But circumstances matter. As a thinker, I try and stick to principles. As a writer, I try and joust against those in power, whoever they are, to keep them honest and expose their flaws. Ideologues stick to their side, regardless of context, principle, or the balance of power. And that, I think, is something Marshall, Glenn and I can all agree on.

Dale Carpenter crunches numbers.

More analysis of Dick Cheney’s recently acquired powers here.

A reader writes:

"For the last few years I’ve been in a bit of a political identity crisis. I used to consider myself a leftist, but over time I’ve come to believe in many conservative principles, such as limited government, balanced budgets, reduced spending, a cautious foreign policy, etc. For a while, your own blog even had me thinking that maybe I was a conservative myself. But now I realize that these were leftist principles all along. Thanks so much to all those Bush supporters out there for clarifying the matter. And welcome to the Left, Andrew. We’re not all crazy liberals over here after all."

"We must believe in the fact that Islam is not confined to geographical borders, ethnic groups and nations. It’s a universal ideology that leads the world to justice. We don’t shy away from declaring that Islam is ready to rule the world. We must prepare ourselves to rule the world and the only way to do that is to put forth views on the basis of the Expectation of the Return. If we work on the basis of the Expectation of the Return [of the Mahdi], all the affairs of our nation will be streamlined and the administration of the country will become easier. Some politicians think we had a revolution so that some could hit others in the head and have one party ruling for some time and another party in opposition for some time. But we had a revolution to achieve a lofty goal, on the basis on the Expectation of the Return," – Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, clearly explaining the role that faith in a looming Apocalypse and global Muslim domination plays in the ruling faction in Iran.

One thing I’ve learned from history. It’s good to listen to what our enemy says. And it’s good to believe him.

Purged from the CIA after a long career, Paul Pillar gives a riveting account of what went wrong in the biggest intelligence failure in the U.S. since, er, 9/11.

Jon Rauch has a fascinating new piece up, analyzing the fate of Independent voters over the past few decades. There are fewer genuine independents than you might think – most are weak partisans of either side. Republicans have become the more ideological party, with the clearer brand and higher loyalty, even though their numbers are not, in fact, that impressive. Independents have only themselves to blame for declining influence, because they are staying home on voting day more and more (hence the Rove strategy). But a real centrist candidate emerged, who could galvanize the center from a Democratic label, then the gains might be huge (think what Perot did). Independents have become far more hostile to the Republicans in their Bush-theocon incarnation, making a centrist campaign more plausible. If Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, she could kill off this Democratic opportunity. If McCain ran as an independent, all bets are off.