The Dish

A reader writes:

Greenwald is in error when he states that people like me who don't identify with the left anymore (I now consider myself an open-minded moderate) want no criticism of Obama. By all means, dissent and dialogue on every issue. That is what brings a deeper understanding to all. What I object to is the nutty dogmatism, the "Obama is a liar!," "Obama is Bush/Cheney," "Obama is… whatever." It's those folks screaming about what Obama isn't doing and what he should do who seem to have invested him with Godlike qualities, not the more pragmatic of us.

They do seem to have seen him as the savior that the right was constantly suggesting many viewed him as. That he would wave his magic wand and all our problems would just evaporate. It's a very immature view with a lot of foot-stopping that seems more emotionally invested than those of us who thought he was smart, thoughtful, compassionate, and broad-minded, and would bring those qualities into all his decision-making. That's what I was looking for and that's what I'm getting.

Another reader adds:

Greenwald seems to be writing off personality traits like they are irrelevant and secondary to policy decisions, but while they may be secondary they are far from irrelevant. The point is that most of us on the outside have to form our opinions with relatively little to go on (that’s why there are so many reflexive warmongers or reflexive peaceniks.) I am not privy to most of the information the president has when making his Afghanistan decisions. I’m am also not former military, and don’t have in depth knowledge of military strategy and logistics, so while I do have an opinion on Afghanistan, I think it is most important that the president (the person with access to that knowledge) have certain personality traits that I think are conducive to finding the best solution. I think this is far more important than him reflexively supporting my uninformed opinion.

Today on the Dish we covered some residual protests out of Iran and watched a unsettling clip of Basji brutality. Maddow tackled gay conversion and Uganda, Noah Pollak shared Andrew's view of the US-Israeli fissure, Yglesias talked about outspending the Taliban, and DiA and a Dish reader shared their thoughts on the suicide bomber interview.

On the domestic front, Ambinder fisked Palin on climate-gate, a reader corrected her view of history, Jon Stewart called out the condescension of "Fox and Friends," Ezra was optimistic about Medicare expansion, Chait added his thoughts, Radley Balko discussed the Huckabee scandal, Ross followed up Rosin on divorce rates, and Greenwald targeted some Dish readers. Steven Teles talked cap and trade while Free Exchange and a reader considered carbon tariffs. This viral video was most amusing.

In home news, we're proud to announce that all 3,000 books printed for the holiday launch have been sold. A big thanks to all the Dish readers who helped make it happen. You can still purchase "The View From Your Window" at the regular Blurb price here.

— C.B.

This Maddow clip has been getting some deserved attention:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Bloomberg reports that the death penalty and life imprisonment may be stripped from the Ugandan bill in favor of forcing gays into “counseling.” Jim Burroway keeps in mind the other sections of the bill. It would:

* Criminalize all speech and peaceful assembly for those who advocate on behalf of LGBT citizens in Uganda with fines and imprisonment of between five and seven years.

* Criminalize the act of obtaining a same-sex marriage abroad with lifetime imprisonment. This penalty may be reduced in the new version, but the act still appears to be criminalized to some extent.

* Add a clause which forces friends or family members to report LGBT persons to police within 24-hours of learning about that individual’s homosexuality or face fines or imprisonment of up to three years.

* Add an extra-territorial and extradition provisions, allowing Uganda to prosecute LGBT Ugandans living abroad.

* Void all international treaties, agreements and human rights obligations which conflict with this bill.

One of his readers asks:

I wonder if they didn’t initially include the death penalty in this bill as a ploy, knowing they would bargain it away so that once it was gone the rest of the bill wouldn’t seem so extreme.

Jonathan Chait rubs his crystal ball:

The one real landmine here is that the Medicare buy-in provision for people aged 55-65 raises a lot of hackles among medical providers. They could mount a last-minute lobbying campaign to pressure Democrats to abandon this. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see that happen. If that happens, you probably lose the Medicare buy-in but keep the trigger. Either way, the outcome is a historic health care bill.

Larison analyzes a new poll:

Ben Smith notes that 44% now say they would prefer to have Bush as President according to a recent PPP poll. At first, that seems startling because of the tremendous improvement in Bush’s approval numbers that this represents, but it is more interesting as evidence of how quickly people forget their complaints against an earlier government and how ready they are to edit their memories of that time selectively to make them seem much better than the present. It is also a product of a partisan reflex for people to insist that the President from their party was better.

Free Exchange has a few questions for Daniel Gros who supports a carbon tariff:

I'd really like to know whether Mr Gros and others perceive that there is any risk in advocating carbon tariffs at a time when global trade has collapsed, and when unemployment levels around the developed world are at or near postwar highs. Isn't there just the slightest possibility of abuse?

A reader writes:

Palin comments about the glories of the "Greatest Generation" continue the well-worn theme of a nation of self-sacrificing volunteers to duty. The fact is, about two thirds of the soldiers who fought in WW2 were drafted. While there were those who rushed to volunteer after Pearl Harbor, to say "American men enlisted in droves" is to deny the complexity of enlistment and conscription before and during the war.

For one thing, many soldiers had already been drafted before Pearl Harbor in a deeply unpopular (and politically risky) draft put forward by Roosevelt in 1940. The original 12 month term of service was extended in the summer of 1941 in a bill so unpopular it passed in the House by one vote. Angry draftees responded to the extension with threats to desert when they reached their original twelve month service.

Most American men did not volunteer. They registered for the draft (the scope of which broadened by age and category several times during the war) and waited to be called. The US Military even preferred that men wait to be called up as that allowed them to better regulate the flow of troops into training camps. Most men chose to go to college or work as they waited to serve, hoping to mitigate the impact their was service would have on their regular lives.

Millions of American men went to war when they were called and served with honor. But to portray the "Greatest Generation" as a mass of volunteers for the war effort is not accurate.

Exposing the faux provincialism of "Fox and Friends":

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Gretchen Carlson Dumbs Down
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Another fun fact when you google Gretchen Carlson: her babysitter was Michele Bachmann.

Felix Salmon argues once more that housing isn't an investment.