The Dish

Wonkette has a fun write-up of the event last night. I met both Wonk and Ette in the drunken dregs of the evening. I may even have gotten an Oscar party invite from Arianna as a reward for giving her a Poseur Alert about the last one. But my short-term memory fails me.

Steve Clemons surveys the current landscape – and wants the US to listen to the Israeli intelligence bureaucracy on Iran.

Here’s an interesting nugget from the new Foreign Policy magazine blog:

"Despite public statements after the Abu Ghraib scandal indicating that the United States would reduce the Iraqi prison population, the Brookings Iraq Index released this week shows it has more than doubled since June 2004. There are now around 15,000 Iraqi prisoners held by U.S. and Allied forces, in addition to those held by the local authorities. Compare that to the estimated size of the insurgency, between 15,000 and 20,000, and that gives an indication of how wide the net has been cast."

With so many military detainees, it’s just as well we have firm guidelines to deal with them, isn’t it?

"[T]he liberal tradition, the Cold War liberal tradition suggests, in fact, America can have civil liberties, and anti-totalitarianism, too. It’s the Joe McCarthy traditions, the Richard Nixon traditions which say we can’t," – Peter Beinart, on the Hugh Hewitt show. (Hat tip: Tristram). 

Here’s an interesting interview with one of the more fearless and bracing public thinkers out there today, Sam Harris. Money quote:

"It’s not that there’s not a wealth of discourse about what the Koran actually says. There is a lot of Muslim scholarship out there. The problem is that there really is no basis for what we would call a moderate and genuinely pluralistic worldview to be pulled out of Islam. You really need to do some seriously acrobatic theology to get an Islam that is compatible with 21st century civil society. This is witnessed virtually every day we open the newspaper now, the latest case being the apostate in Afghanistan who converted to Christianity. The basic message of this episode should be clear: this is a government that we came in and reformulated and propped up, and the fact that it had to have a constitution that was in conformity to Islam, opened the door to the true face of Islam, which is: apostasy is punishable by death. That is a fact that no liberal exegesis of Islam is going to change.  We have to find some way to change it, of course. Islam needs a reformation. But at present, it‚Äôs true to say that the real word of God in Islam is that if you change your religion, you should die for it."

A promising development – in Utah.

The bill mandating universal health insurance in Massachusetts is a fascinating one, and Mitt Romney’s support a politically admirable maneuver. There are a few things to say in its favor. First off, it empowers individuals to take control of their own health insurance, rather than putting all the emphasis on employers. One reason we have a healthcare cost crisis is that the genius of American consumers is kept at arm’s length in the healthcare universe. If you establish a base minimum of insurance, subsidize individuals who need financial help, and mandate a universal requirement, you then force everyone to pick and choose from a variety of insurance plans in an insurance "exchange". Inevitably, in such an exchange, you’re going to have intermediaries trying to sell various policies, market them, and provide clear consumer advice about what’s in them. You get a real market, in other words, where consumers can see trade-offs and make sane decisions. (The current exchange in Massachusetts is currently restricted for smaller businesses, but the principle holds for a more general application.) Make co-payments a percentage of the actual price of drugs, rather than being a standard lump sum, and you could ratchet up the market impact still further.

Eventually, you could begin to get outside groups sponsoring various policies as well. What if NOW decided to endorse a specific healthcare insurance plan that ensures that women will not have their reproductive rights infringed? Or what if the Catholic church decides to back another plan more in line with its own moral priorities? Or the AARP? You begin to see how choice can come alive in the healthcare market. You also get rid of the economic inefficiencies of tying individuals to certain jobs for health insurance rather than other reasons. And by bringing more people into the general pool, you can reduce premiums in the medium and long term. What’s not to like? There are several grand compromises like this one out there on various subjects. This one gives the left universality and the right market mechanisms. Romney deserves praise for pioneering it. And the founders once again deserve our gratitude for constructing a federalist system in which useful experiments like this can occur. And we can learn from them. More, please.

More riveting television from MEMRI. A Bahraini women’s rights campaigner, fighting against Sharia-backed abuse of women and children, speaks her mind with clarity and courage. People think the Arab world is not ready for democracy and human rights? I’d say they’re not listening hard enough.

"Let me first introduce to you the real Rudy Giuliani. Is America really ready for a drag-queen president? Can America survive another obnoxious phony baloney masquerading as one thing and governing as another? Will Republicans be fooled again and nominate a candidate who favors unrestricted abortion on demand?" – Joseph Farah, going off on Rudy. Imagine what will happen if Giuliani really gets in the race.

Russ Feingold is the fourth U.S. Senator to support marriage equality for gay citizens. I’ll take him at his word that he’s responding to a draconian ban on legal gay relationships in Wisconsin. But it will also surely help him in the Democratic primaries, especially with gay money. Clinton was the first candidate to seek such money openly, well over a decade ago. Now, you have the prospect of a national politician endorsing marriage as a way to build a campaign. That’s a shift forward. Of course, it will be described, and already has been, as a "fringe left" move. This sentiment is now "fringe-left":

"I will be voting against the harsh amendment that’s been proposed in Wisconsin, and I thought it was an appropriate occasion to indicate my feeling that if two people care enough about each other to get married, that it probably is a positive thing for society."

If someone were saying that about straight people, they’d be regarded as a conservative Republican. When they say it about gay people, they’re "fringe left." Go figure. But congrats, Senator. You’ve done the right thing. One day, it will seem obvious. And you’ll seem on the leading edge of humane reform.