The Dish

Mark Kleiman finishes up some guest blogging about his new book over at Volokh’s place. In response to comments:

The suggestion that various non-punitive programs might control crime, and that doing so was preferable, ceteris paribus, to controlling crime by inflicting damage on offenders, met with an especially furious response, mostly centered on the phrase “liberal social engineering.”  But the project of putting 1% of the adult population behind bars — an incarceration rate five times as high as any other advanced democracy, and five times as high as the U.S. ever had before 1975 — is itself a massive, massively risky, and expensive  social-engineering project, and no less massive, risky, or expensive for never having been thought through.   It also involves a completely unprecedented expansion of the power of the state over the individual.

Today on the Dish we continued to track coverage of NY-23. John Cole commented on the lack of party loyalty, Jonah Goldberg declared ideological victory, Mark Blumenthal and PPP predicted a big Hoffman win, Nate Silver looked at the consequences that outcome, Josh Marshall anticipated a new model for upcoming elections, Larison sounded off, Weigel reported from NY-23, and a reader who grew up there wrote in. Also, while Hoffman was also raised in NY-23, nearly all of his campaign funds were raised out of state (as well as his political profile).

In the Afghan election debacle, Mac McCallister sized up Abdullah's scheme, Crowley showed that he still has some kick for Karzai, and Peter Galbraith gave some perspective from the ground. In other foreign coverage, an Iranian student faced down the Supreme Leader, Gideon Levy dispensed some tough love to Israel, and Goldfarb and Goldblog got into some hot water over NIAC's president. 

In other commentary, Michael Wolff tried to make sense of the Palin circus, Andrew dressed down Laura Ingraham, James Joyner saw The Advocate's demise as a good sign, Gene Weingarten waxed eloquent about old dogs, and Jacob Weisberg and The Streets talked drugs.

Ever heard of a beard-second?

— C.B.

Larison makes several strong points:

The GOP seems to be making what ought to be an easy win into a national Phyrrhic victory in which the relative strength of conservative activists inside the party becomes vastly exaggerated and identifies the flailing, failing party even more closely with its conservative members. This will make it very difficult for conservative activists to disassociate themselves from the outcome of the midterms next year.

What I find strange in the fixation on NY-23 is that the off-year gubernatorial elections probably serve as a much better indicator of large-scale movements in public opinion. Larger, more diverse electorates in large states are involved in Virginia and New Jersey. If things go as I expect them to with a Republican pick-up in Virginia and a Democratic hold in New Jersey, the message will be rather muddled. It will mean that Virginia will have chosen a Northern Virginia moderate who successfully ran away from his earlier social conservatism while New Jersey re-elected an incumbent who was thought to be highly vulnerable and discredited by corruption. Those results could be explained by pointing to the nature of the electorates in both states, but this does not lend itself to a triumphant narrative of Republican resurgence fueled by true believers.

Box Turtle Bulletin brings us the latest from Uganda:

As we reported last week, several Ugandan Christian leaders have spoken out on the Anti-Homosexuality Act which has been introduced in that nation’s Parliament, but their statements have largely been in full support with the bill – with a few reservations about the proposed death penalty for “serial offenders” and those who are HIV-positive…While some Ugandan Christian leaders have expressed reservations about the death penalty provisions – while being perfectly happy with lifetime imprisonment for being gay, at least one prominent Uganda preacher has given the new law his total support. Martin Ssempa of Makerere Community Church was not at the parliamentary meeting, but he did send a statement to Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton in which he offered his “total support of the bill and would be most grateful if it did pass.”

Joe Fiorito argues against mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses:

[Eugene Oscapella, a founding member of the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy] said, “If you’re a mom-and-pop producer of marijuana, mandatory minimums will scare you out of business.” Yeah, so? “Organized crime will step in; the government has moved the competition out of the way.” This is an unintended consequence of the worst kind: Banning a substance makes it wildly lucrative; punishing the small fry makes it easier for the bad guys to do business.

(Hat tip: Drug WarRant)

Ambers relays the mood at the White House:

The more Republicans find their voice on the right, on what White House officials call the "Palin-Beck" axis, the better Democrats will fare after 2010, when they still should have their majorities, when they should have a sleeve of accomplishments, when it becomes clear that Republicans are unwilling or unable to build a genuine coalition.

Razib Khan counters Yglesias on one point.

Hoffman appears on Beck and slowly undergoes conversion therapy:

HOFFMAN: I have good mentors here.

GLENN: Wait, wait. Wait, wait. Are they mentors that will show –

HOFFMAN: I’m talking about you, Glenn.

GLENN: Oh, okay. I was going to say all right, as long as they are standing out from the shadows. […]

HOFFMAN: No. Yeah, well, I’m going to keep in touch with people like you so I don’t get infected with that disease.

Beck persuaded Hoffman that climate change is not caused by humans. Meanwhile, Palin is robo-calling Virginians. They're voting for "Sarah's Values" whatever those are.

Bruce Bartlett concisely describes why government stimulus was necessary to battle this recession. His bottom line:

The main differences between today's crisis and the Great Depression is that the deflationary pressure is less than a third of what it was in the 1930s and policymakers today reacted much more swiftly and more appropriately than they did after 1929. Those who think the government should have done nothing risked turning the current downturn into another Great Depression. Thankfully, their advice was ignored.