Category: The Dish

A classic TV spat. Good for Chris.

My favorite military tradition.

George Packer ponders intervention:

Forcing the regime to let the rest of the world save its people would have a devastating effect on morale. Burma’s leaders are so isolated and irrational that they actually believe their own propaganda about being the only group that can hold the country together. It’s possible that the junta would collapse out of sheer humiliation. It’s also possible, though it seems unlikely to me, that Burmese military units would be ordered to engage the foreigners. Shots might be fired, people might be killed. No one knows what will happen if British sailors and American airmen arrive on soggy Burmese soil. Hanging over the question is, of course, Iraq. No one expects an intervention to go smoothly anymore; now we expect it to go terribly wrong. I doubt the American, British, French, Australian, and other governments, with or without U.N. consent, will decide to invade Burma with boxes of oral rehydration kits and high-energy biscuits. But if the fear of Baghdad and Falluja is what keeps foreign powers from saving huge numbers of Burmese from their own government’s callousness, that will be one more tragic consequence of the Iraq.

On the other hand, if it’s going to be done, it should be done quickly. I know all the arguments why we shouldn’t. But there are at least a million counterarguments why we should.

A brief, decisive international effort to reach the starving and sick seems important to me. If it helps demystify this vile regime, great. But in its demonstration of humanity, it is also a great way for the US to enhance its soft power in the developing world. People remember who saved them. And sometimes, a bottle of water can mean a lifetime of gratitude. Bonus Burma blog here.

Bee Wilson considers the world food crisis. Money quote:

Even now, there is no over-all food shortage when measured by global subsistence needs. Despite the current food crisis, last year’s worldwide grain harvest was colossal, five per cent above the previous year’s. We are not yet living on Cormac McCarthy’s scorched earth. Yet demand is increasing ever faster. As of 2006, there were eight hundred million people on the planet who were hungry, but they were outnumbered by the billion who were overweight. Our current food predicament resembles a Malthusian scenario—misery and famine—but one largely created by overproduction rather than underproduction. Our ability to produce vastly too many calories for our basic needs has skewed the concept of demand, and generated a wildly dysfunctional market.

Marty Lederman grasps its significance:

Wholly apart from the particular holding on same-sex marriage — which is plenty important in and of itself — it strikes me that the most significant legal development in the Court’s decision is that it is (to my knowledge) the first time any state or federal court of last resort has held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is suspect and thus subject to strict scrutiny under a constitutional equal protection clause.

A fantastic article this morning by Dahlia Lithwick on those "activist" judges. Here’s the lede:

When it comes to gay marriage, California is a hotbed of activism. Their activist Legislature has twice passed bills that would legalize gay marriage, and their activist governor has twice vetoed those bills. That same activist Legislature also enacted a ban on same-sex marriage in 1977, and its activist citizenry passed a statewide ballot initiative in 2000 doing the same thing. While polls show that Californians are increasingly supportive of gay marriage, other activist citizens have been collecting what now amounts to 1.1 million signatures to amend their constitution in November to say that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." But then today the state’s activist Supreme Court got in on the activist action, finding in a 4-3 decision that the California ban on same-sex marriage violates the "fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship." That makes everybody an activist in California, just by virtue of the fact that they are acting. (Let it be noted that it’s particularly activist of the state Legislature and its citizens to be banning and legalizing gay marriage all at the same time.)

The notion that courts have to do nothing in the American system – other than transcribe legislation – is a very strange and unconservative notion. Yes, they should exercise prudence and restraint. But they are there for something. And if they are not there to protect tiny minorities from majority oppression, what the hell are they there for?

Dahlia’s kicker:

My own vote today is with the governor, who’s smart enough to realize both that activism is an empty label, and that when your citizens and/or their Legislature are racing around banning and legalizing the same thing at the same time, the will of the people is not necessarily the last word on what’s constitutional. Moreover, he seems to understand the difference between judicial activism and judicial action, and the fact that the latter is not something for which a court needs to apologize.

McCain is talking to all the liberal blogs but not her. Altogether now: awww.

Isn’t it awesome that we haven’t had to think about the Clintons for a day or so? The relief. Meanwhile, 538 reports that Obama is poised to clinch the pledged delegate majority on Tuesday even if Michigan and Florida are seated. And for those still in detox from Clinton meth, here’s a bunch of self-centered, self-critical, anonymous emails from Hillaryland. My favorite:

"There was not any plan in place from beginning to end on how to win the nomination. It was, ‘Win Iowa.’ There was not the experience level, and, frankly, the management ability, to create a whole plan to get to the magical delegate number. That to me is the number one thing. It’s starting from that point that every subsequent decision resulted. The decision to spend x amount in Iowa versus be prepared for February 5 and beyond. Or how much money to spend in South Carolina–where it was highly unlikely we were going to win–versus the decision not to fund certain other states. … It was not as simple as, ‘Oh, that’s a caucus state, we’re not going to play there.’ That suggests a more serious thought process. It suggests a meeting where we went through all that."

It really does sound like the Bush administration in Iraq. But this is the clincher: for the "experience" candidate,

There was not the experience level, and, frankly, the management ability, to create a whole plan.

She so deserved to lose.

McCain was once in favor of Obama’s position. Biden is right. So much of this flap is pure bullshit.

He opposes it in Zimbabwe because of the colonialist history:

"If you send in Western military forces, then you risk the backlash from the people, from the legacy that was left in Africa because of the era of colonialism."

And there’s no colonial issue in the Middle East? Or religious one?